A Structural Commentary on the So-Called Antilegomena: Volume 1. The Letter of James: Wisdom that Comes from Above [1 ed.] 9783666573309, 9783525573303

Citation preview

Format: BEZ 155x230, Aufriss: HuCo

EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN VOICES

29 mm

VOL. 3.1

3.1 Kalina Wojciechowska / Mariusz Rosik

The authors Kalina Wojciechowska, a Lutheran biblical scholar, is professor in the Department of New Testament Studies and Greek Language of the Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw, lecturer at the Evangelical School of Theology (EST) in Wrocław and at the University of Warsaw and vice-president of the Theological Sciences Committee at the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN).

A Structural Commentary on the So-Called Antilegomena

Mariusz Rosik teaches New Testament exegesis, biblical environment and Jewish history at the Pontifical Faculty of Theology and at the University of Wrocław. He is a member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (Cambridge), Polish Biblical Society (Warszawa) and Associazzione degli Ex-alunni del Pontificio Istituto Biblico (Rome). Prof. Dr habil. Mariusz Rosik has published over sixty books and many articles in fourteen languages.

ISBN 978-3-525-57330-3

9 783525 573303

  A Structural Commentary on Wojciechowska / Rosik the So-Called Antilegomena

This ecumenical (Roman Catholic—Lutheran) commentary on the Letter of James emphasises the sapiential character through identifying a structure organized around the catalogue of attributes of wisdom enumerated in James 3:17.

Volume 1: The Letter of James: Wisdom that Comes from Above

ECEV

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Eastern and Central European Voices Studies in Theology and Religion

Edited by Rajmund Pietkiewicz and Krzysztof Pilarczyk

In co-operation with Piotr Burgon´ski (Poland), Wojciech Gajewski (Poland), Cyril Hisˇem (Slovakia), Mirosław Kiwka (Poland), Mihály Laurinyecz (Hungary), Piotr Lorek (Poland), Dominik Opatrný (Czech Republic), Adrian Podaru (Romania), Kristina Rutkovska (Lithuania), Oleg Salamon (Ukraine), Sławomir Stasiak (Poland), Jose M. Vegas (Russia)

Volume 3.1

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Kalina Wojciechowska / Mariusz Rosik

A Structural Commentary on the So-Called Antilegomena Volume 1

The Letter of James: Wisdom that Comes from Above

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

The book was financed from the subsidy granted by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek listsTheaterstraße this publication the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; © 2021 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 13,in37073 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the detailed bibliographic dataBrill available online: https://dnb.de. Brill-Group (Koninklijke NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; © 2021 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Theaterstraße 13, 37073 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) the Brill-Group Brill NV, The Netherlands; BrillBrill USAHotei, Inc., Boston MA, USA; Koninklijke Brill(Koninklijke NV incorporates theLeiden, imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; Österreich Brill Asia Fink,Pte Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike andBrill V&R unipress. GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brillreserved. mentis, Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlagor Antike andinV&R unipress. All rights No part of this&work may be reproduced utilized any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any information storage This publication is licensedincluding under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – Noand retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Derivatives 4.0 International license, at https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309. For a copy of this license go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Any use in cases other Coverthose design: SchwabScantechnik, than permitted by this license Göttingen requires the prior written permission from the publisher. Publishing reviews: Prof. Marek Jerzy Uglorz (Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw) and Prof. Mirosław Wróbel (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Translation: Magdalena Wrocław Publishing reviews: Prof. Konopko, Marek Jerzy Uglorz (Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw) and Indexes: Anna Wróbel Kryza, Wrocław Prof. Mirosław (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Typesetting:Magdalena le-tex publishing services, Leipzig Translation: Konopko, Wrocław Indexes: Anna Kryza, Wrocław Printed and le-tex bound: Hubert &services, Co. BuchPartner, Typesetting: publishing Leipzig Göttingen Printed in the EU

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2749–6260 ISBN 978–3–666–57330–9 ISSN 2749–6260 ISBN 978–3–525–57330–3

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Table of Contents

Abbreviations ....................................................................................... Bibliographic abbreviations ..................................................................... Apocrypha ............................................................................................ Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran Caves Scrolls).................................................. Ancient Writings ................................................................................... Grammar abbreviations and others ..........................................................

7 7 7 8 8 9

Preface ................................................................................................ 11 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 1.1 Textual Evidence and Canonicity................................................. 1.2 Authorship ............................................................................... 1.3 Dating ..................................................................................... 1.4 Vocabulary, style, structure ......................................................... 1.5 Genre ...................................................................................... 1.6 Sender and addressees ...............................................................

19 19 27 41 45 57 76

2. The Structural Commentary .............................................................. 2.1 Wisdom comes from above (James 1:5–8.16–18) ........................... 2.2 Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27) ....................................... 2.3 Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3).......................................................................... 2.4 Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11) .................................................................... 2.5 Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12).............. 2.6 Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)........... 2.7 Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18) ...................................................... 2.8 Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3) ....... 2.9 Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12) ......................................................................... 2.10 Conclusion (James 3:13).............................................................

99 99 108 122 136 153 166 185 231 261 279

3. Summary......................................................................................... 285

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

6

Table of Contents

Bibliography ......................................................................................... Biblical texts.......................................................................................... Apocryphal literature ............................................................................. Ancient Christian writers........................................................................ Other ancient writers ............................................................................. Dictionaries, synopses and concordances .................................................. Commentaries....................................................................................... Studies .................................................................................................

287 287 288 289 290 291 292 293

Indexes ................................................................................................ Index of persons .................................................................................... Index of references ................................................................................. Bible .................................................................................................... Apocrypha and Dead Sea Scrolls.............................................................. Others ..................................................................................................

299 299 304 304 326 329

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Abbreviations

Bibliographic abbreviations CBQ JBL JETS JSNTSup JTS NTS PL THKNT ZNW

“Catholic Biblical Quarterly” “Journal of Biblical Literature” “Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society” “Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Supplement Series)” “Journal of Theological Studies” “New Testament Studies” Patrologia Latina Theologische Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlische Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche”

Apocrypha 1 En 2 En 2 GHeb GTh Jub PssSol TAb TAsh TBenj TDan TGad TIss TJud TJob TLevi TNaph TSim

Book of Enoch/1 Enoch Second Book of Enoch/2 Enoch/Slavonic Enoch Bar Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch/2 Baruch Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of Thomas/Coptic Gospel of Thomas Book of Jubilees Psalms of Solomon Testament of Abraham Testament of Asher Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan Testament of Gad Testament of Issachar Testament of Judah Testament of Job Testament of Levi Testament of Naphtali Testament of Simeon

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

8

Abbreviations

Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran Caves Scrolls) 1Q27 1QHa 1QS 4Q184 4Q185 4Q298 4Q299 4Q300 4Q301 4Q412 4Q415 4Q416 4Q417 4Q418 4Q420 4Q421 4Q423 4Q424 4Q425 4Q470 4Q525

Book of Mysteries Hodayot/Thanksgiving Hymns Community Rule Wiles of the Wicked Woman 4Q Sapiential Work Words of Sage Man Book of Mysteries A Book of Mysteries B Book of Mysteries C Sapiential-Didactic A Instructions A Instructions B Instructions C Instructions D Ways of Righteouseness A Ways of Righteouseness B Instructions G 4Q Sapiential Work (= 4Q185) Sapiential-Didactic Work Fragment Mentioning Zedekiah Blessed

Ancient Writings 1Clem. Ant. Bell. Iud. HE Pan. Pol. Phil. Rec. Smyr.

First Epistle by Clement of Rome Antiquitates Iudaicae (Antiquities of the Jews) by Titus Flavius Josephus De bello Iudaico (The Jewish War) by Titus Flavius Josephus Historia ecclesiastica (Church History) by Eusebius of Caesarea Panarion/Adversus Haereses (Refutation of All Heresies) by Epiphanius of Salamis Epistle to the Philippians by Polycarp of Smyrna The Recognitions by Pseudo-Clement Epistle to the Smyrnaeans by Ignatius of Antioch

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Grammar abbreviations and others

Grammar abbreviations and others ACI acc. act. aor. con. fut. gen. imp. ind. masc. med. nom. part. pass. perf. pl. praes. sg. voc.

accusativus cum infinitivo accusativus activum aoristus coniunctivus futurum genetivus imperativus indicativus masculinum medium nominativus participium passivum perfectum pluralis praeses singularis vocativus

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

9

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Preface

The Letter of James counts among the most enigmatic and ambiguous texts of not only the New Testament but of early Christian literature in general.1 It is not known by whom and when it was written though the prescript mentions the author’s name – James. It is not known to which community or communities it was addressed although the twelve tribes who are in the diaspora are mentioned as the recipients in the address. Its ancient reception was quite equivocal. Some scholars, such as Origen, considered it to be an important and undoubtedly normative (and canonical) text; others, for example Eusebius of Caesarea, shared the doubts of many of their contemporaries and ranked it among antilegomena. Even Saint Jerome took an equivocal position. The Letter of James may on the one hand beguile readers with its unique lexis and elegant Hellenistic style; on the other hand, one may be repelled by its lack of coherence, excessive didacticism and scarcity of theological motifs, in particular Christological ones. A real ‘black legend’ developed around the letter in the sixteenth century, when its apostolicity was questioned by Martin Luther who called it an ‘epistle of straw’ due to its lack of evangelical character – namely, that “it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He [James] names Christ several times; however, he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God”.2 Humanists (Erasmus of Rotterdam) as well as representatives of the Roman Catholic Church (Thomas Cajetan) discussed the canonicity of the letter. At the same time, however, both Catholic and evangelical traditions have been in agreement that the letter belongs to deuterocanonical writings, though they used to understand the term a bit differently and were guided by different classification criteria. Since the time of Reformation, the Letter of James has been mainly associated with the phrase ‘faith and works’, contrasted with the Pauline principle of ‘faith alone’. As a result, the epistle has hardly ever been approached as an autonomous text and was mainly commented on in reference to St. Paul’s theology. The alleged opposition between James and Paul has been explained in many ways: it was sometimes seen as the sign of controversy between the apostles or at times as the sign of misunderstanding of Paul’s idea by James himself or by the communities to

1 M.A. Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James. The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, the Law of Freedom, Leiden–Boston–Köln 2001, p. 1. 2 M. Luther, Prefaces to the Books of the Bible, Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude 1545 (1522), http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm [accessed: 11.03.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

12

Preface

which James addressed his letter. There have also emerged hypotheses negating any connection or influence of Paul upon James or James upon Paul and these have been based on a slightly different vision of the beginnings and unity of Christianity in the first century than the traditional, idealised one and on the revision of the widely accepted dating of the Letter of James to the late first century. This in turn generated questions concerning other relations and dependencies – inter alia between James and Matthew, James and Luke, or James and the Q source. What is more and more often accentuated at present is certain convergence of themes, images, ideas and theological approaches, especially eschatological ones, appearing in both the synoptic Gospels and in James as well as in James and in Corpus Paulinum, thanks to which the Letter of James gains greater autonomy. A similar viewpoint has also been adopted by the authors of this commentary. Controversies regarding the authorship, the date of composition of the letter, its addressees and, when compared to other biblical writings, similarities and differences on lexical, semantic and theological levels generated debates concerning its literary genre, coherence of the text, the above-mentioned associations with other texts as well as intertextual strategies. The classic works which should be named here are the monographs by James B. Adamson,3 William R. Backer,4 Richard Bauckham,5 Peter H. Davids,6 John H. Elliott,7 Patrick Hartin,8 Martin Hengel,9 Martin Klein,10 Matthias Konradt,11 Martina Ludwig,12 John Painter,13 Todd C.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

J.B. Adamson, James, the Man and his Message, Grand Rapids 1989. W.R. Backer, Personal Speech. Ethics in the Epistle of James, Tübingen 1995. R. Bauckham, James, New York 1999. P.H. Davids, James and Jesus, [in:] Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, ed. D. Wenham, Sheffield 1985 p. 63–84. J.H. Elliott, The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective: Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication, “Biblical Theology Bulletin” 23 (1993). P.J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSup 47), Sheffield 1991. M. Hengel, Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik, [in:] Tradition and Interpretation, ed. O. Betz, G.F. Hawthorne, Grand Rapids 1987 p. 248–278. M. Klein, Ein vollkommenes Werk: vollkommenheit, Gesetz and Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes, Stuttgart 1995. M. Konradt, Christlische Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen and ethischen Konzeption (Studien zum Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 22), Göttingen 1998. M. Ludwig, Wort als Gesetz: Eine Untersuchung zum Verständnis von ‘Wort’ and ‘Gesetz’ in israelitischfrühjüdischen und neutestamentlischen Schriften: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes, Frankfurt 1994. J. Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, Columbia 2004 (first edition – Colombia 1997).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Preface

Penner,14 Duane Watson,15 or commentaries by Hubert Frankemöller,16 Luke Timothy Johnson,17 Scot McKnight,18 Sophie Laws,19 Ralph P. Martin,20 Douglas J. Moo,21 Robert Wall.22 In the twentieth century, these discussions concurred with the development of methods used in biblical text analysis, but it should be noted that, although the NT exegesis has at its disposal a wide range of methods, including interdisciplinary approaches which refer to postmodernism,23 yet hardly ever have other methods apart from historical criticism and socio-historical or comparative approaches been used in the case of the Letter of James or the Catholic epistles in general (maybe except for the letters of John, usually analysed within the context of the whole Johannine tradition).24 With time, very slowly, other approaches and patterns started to be used in the analysis of James, derived mainly from contemporary literary studies and rhetoric, understood both as rhetoric based on classical ancient patterns and rhetoric drawing upon form criticism and reconstruction of the author’s situation and the primary, historical addressees of the text (rhetoric based on appreciation of competences and situation of every real recipient of the text was rarely used).25 The situation changed in 2005, when the Society of Biblical Literature organised the annual meeting on Methodological Reassessments of the Letters of James, Peter and Jude devoted to the reception of contemporary exegetical and hermeneutical methods in the analysis of these texts. It resulted in the publication of a collection called Reading James with New Eyes in

14 T.C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter (JSNTSup 121), Sheffield 1996; The Epistle of James in Current Research, “Currents in Research” 7 (1999). 15 D. Watson, James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes and Argumentation, NTS 39 (1993). 16 H. Frankemöller, Der Brief des Jakobus (Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 17/1–2), Würzburg 1994. 17 L.T. Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York 1995. 18 S. McKnight, The Letter of James (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids 2010. 19 S. Laws, The Epistle of James, San Francisco 1980. 20 R.P. Martin, James (World Biblical Commentary 48), Waco 1988. 21 D.J. Moo, The Letter of James, Grand Rapids 2000. 22 R. Wall, Community of Wise: The Letter of James (New Testament in Context), Valley Forge 1997. 23 See Preface, [in:] The Postmodern Bible Reader, ed. D. Jobling, T. Pippin, R. Schleifer, Oxford-Malden 2001, p. VIII, where the methods were systematised in seven groups: Reader-Response Criticism, Structuralist and Narratological Criticism, Poststructuralism Criticism, Rhetorical Criticism, Psychoanalytic Criticism, Feminist and Womanist Criticism, Ideological Criticism; there is, at the same time, a possibility of mixing the methods, approaches and paradigms. 24 J.S. Kloppenborg, R.L. Webb, Reading James with New Eyes: an Introduction, [in:] Reading James with New Eyes, ed. J.S. Kloppenborg, R.L. Webb, New York 2007, p. 2–3. 25 D.S. Cunningham, Rhetoric, [in:] Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, ed. A.K.M. Adam, St. Louis 2000, p. 224.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

13

14

Preface

which both the topics traditionally present in papers on the Letter of James and new issues were presented in new light and from a new perspective (e.g. postcolonial, socio-rhetorical, communicative). Thus, since the first decade of the twenty-first century, one could observe greater dynamism and variety in the methodological approach to the Letter of James. The invigoration can also be seen in the approach to the structure of the text. Almost throughout the whole of the twentieth century (from the twenties to the eighties), the most common vision of the structure of James was the theory of Martin Dibelius26 who considered the letter to be a collection of randomly arranged parenetic sentences and aphorisms, too loosely interrelated to create any conceptual coherence, not to mention any linear progress of thought. There were of course attempts at proving at least partial cohesion consisting in e.g. collecting the aphorisms in thematic groups (see James Hardy Ropes27 ), but no connection between the topics was found, at least when the text was read linearly. This is the reason why an opinion which could often be found in traditional commentaries on James was that the aphorisms or their collections are arranged in the letter in the staccato form. This was, as has already been mentioned, one of the factors discouraging the reflection on the Letter of James. The revival and development of research on the coherence and structure of James was brought about by the commentary of Peter H. Davids28 in 1982, in which the author abandoned the classic linear approach to the reading of the letter and showed that the introductions in chapter one (James 1:2–11 and 1:12–27), having a tripartite parallel structure (ABC i A’B’C’) based on the discussed topics, organise in the same tripartite way also the main body of the letter (James 2:1–5:6), but the order of the recapitulated topics is opposite (CBA); thus the sequence of topics in the introductions and in the main body of the letter creates a specific asymmetrical chiasm. The issue of the structure was discussed even more frequently in the following years and this in turn had a positive influence on the autonomy and the broadening of the possibilities of interpretation of the Letter of James. It was more and more often seen as an organised and coherent text, even though the organisation and coherence are not linear. As George H. Guthrie points out, the structural approach involves two elements: it is first of all based on thorough, detailed text analysis, very often on several levels, which helps the reader to recognise structures invisible at first glance and escaping the reader’s notice when the text is read linearly. Secondly

26 M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament11 ), Göttingen 1964 (based on the 1921 edition). 27 J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James, Edinburgh 1916. 28 P.H. Davids, The Epistle of James: a Commentary on the Greek Text (The New International Greek Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids 1982.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Preface

– the identification of the structure (or structures) has an impact on further exegesis and hermeneutics of the text.29 It can be clearly seen in the works of Mark E. Taylor30 (the structure based on Hebrew rhetoric), Timothy B. Cargal31 (the structure based on inverted parallelisms) or IngeborgMongstad-Kvammen32 (the structure drawing upon the thematic index in chapter one). Particularly the last work, in which the Norwegian biblical scholar examines James 1:2–27 in a motivic and semantic way and then, in the main body of the letter, looks for references to the meticulously catalogued topics, has become one of the inspirations for the authors of this commentary. The second inspiration, even though it might seem far from biblical studies, is closely linked to the question of form and identification of the leading theme/motif. It is a musical piece called Nocturnal after John Dowland opus 70 by Benjamin Britten (1913–1976), written in 1963 for the guitarist Julian Bream (b. 1933), one of the pioneer performers of the songs of the English lutenist John Dowland (1563–1626). In his composition Britten uses in a fanciful way the motif of the song Come, heavy sleep – he does not present it at the beginning of the piece but at the end, after eight ‘sleepless’ variations, and even then, he does not repeat the whole theme but shortens it, thus adding subtlety to the finale. A similar structure can be observed in the Letter of James. The author starts the text with ‘variations’ which might be really difficult to connect. It is only in 3:17 where the topic is defined and indexed – it turns out that James’ deliberations refer to wisdom, its features and attributes. The variation form is continued in the remaining part of the letter. One can discern here certain structural analogies: wisdom and its characteristics function in James in the same way as the theme of Dowland’s song in Britten’s piece, though this time not at the end of the composition but in the middle of it. Thus, the index of features and attributes of wisdom from James 3:17 is the organising principle of this structural commentary. The main part of the work (the commentary itself) comprises ten passages, diverse in terms of volume but organised and entitled according to the catalogue provided by James: – index of features and attributes of wisdom (James 3:17); – wisdom comes from above (James 1:5–8.16–18); – wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15, 21a.27);

29 G.H. Guthrie, New Testament Exegesis of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles, [in:] A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. S.E. Porter, Boston–Leiden 2002, p. 592. 30 M.E. Taylor, Recent Scholarship on the Structure of James, “Currents in Biblical Research” 3 (2004), no 1, p. 86–116. 31 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora. Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James (Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series), Atlanta 1993. 32 I. Mongstad-Kvammen, Toward a Postcolonial Reading of the Epistle of James. James 2,1–13 in its Roman Imperial Context, London–Boston 2013.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

15

16

Preface

– – – – –

wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3); wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10–11); wisdom is obedient [to the law] (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12); wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20); wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18); – wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3); – wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12); – summary (James 3:13).

The matching of the passages and the features is based on the semantic criterion, which sometimes overlaps with the lexical one. The authors are fully aware of the fact that such organisation of the text is intrinsically subjective and arbitrary and, consequently, can easily be questioned. However, as Mark E. Taylor33 points out, this is a characteristic feature of every structural approach, particularly in those cases where the forms, structures or modules are not visible or recognisable at first glance. As has already been said, the employment of a particular textual (macro-) structure defines further exegesis and hermeneutics. If wisdom and its attributes have been recognised as the main theme of the Letter of James, then the subsequent levels of the text, including microstructures visible in individual fragments, should be read in accordance with the sapiential principle. And indeed, all the listed passages show binarity typical of sapiential literature, where the demeanour of a person endowed with the gift of wisdom is contrasted with the demeanour of a person devoid of the gift. Certainly, not every feature has been directly expounded, some of them have to be reconstructed by the recipient through the negation of what has already been explained by the author of the letter. Most fragments have a clear structure, sometimes even concentric. In most of them one can find references to the story of salvation divided into the past, the present and the future. Each commentary presenting a particular feature or attribute of wisdom is preceded by an explanation of philological nature, which takes into account the lexical ambiguity characteristic of James. Different meanings of the same word have been marked by a slash (e.g. soul/life). Lexical ambiguity is perfectly compatible with James’ hermeneutics of integrity, which makes it possible to read the letter in a dialectic way (e.g. both faith and works; both body and soul; both internal and external aspects; listening and contemplating and understanding and doing combined) rather than in an alternative way (e.g. either faith or works; either body or soul etc.). The intention has been to present integrity as one of the main messages of the letter, revealed at

33 M.E. Taylor, G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of James, CBQ 68 (2000), p. 701.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Preface

different levels of the text. It is, above all, stressed in the passage 3:13 which sums up the Letter of James: inherent wisdom that comes from God becomes manifest in the demeanour and conduct compliant with the Divine will, expressed in the integrated great commandment to love God and your neighbour. The decision to analyse the structure of the Letter of James and to organise the commentary on its basis has been made not only for exegetic reasons, although they have proven to be dominating, but has also been motivated by the ecumenical character of this work. It is probably the first attempt at providing a concerted insight into the Letter of James from both Lutheran and Catholic perspective in the history of Polish biblical studies. Focusing on text structure has allowed for a departure from strictly confessional approach which could result in the adoption of polemical, apologetic or confrontational positions rather than working out a common, concerted stance. This does not mean that the commentary is totally devoid of confessional elements. However, they have not been introduced in the main body of the text but in the footnotes. As has already been mentioned, the authors wished to emphasise the distinctiveness and autonomy of the Letter of James. Thus, they assumed the convergence of ideas, topics and phrases appearing in James and in other New Testament texts and abandoned the inquiry into their mutual relations and dependencies. The main focus of the study of intertextual strategies was on references to Old Testament literature and to intertestamental literature, mainly sapiential but not only. The similarities observed in the texts are presented in the form of charts in the introduction. The introductory part of this commentary is quite traditional and conventional. It concentrates on textual evidence, canonicity and hypotheses concerning the author and the dating of the text. Due to the character of the work, much attention is paid to the presentation of style and vocabulary as well as the review of the different attitudes to the structure of the Letter of James. Extensive overview of generic issues aims not only at showing the erudition of the author who reaches for genres representing both Jewish and Hellenistic literature, but, first of all, at presenting the letter as a text which fits perfectly well into the genre of sapiential literature and particularly into one of its characteristic forms – a circular letter to the diaspora. The discussion concerning the author and the addressees of the letter is of less traditional nature since it uses a model commonly used in literary theory, which takes into account different transmission, reception and communication levels. It turns out that in combination with the generic convention and pseudonymity of the text it is possible to distinguish as many as four levels of communication. This helps to look more broadly at the recipients of the letter, not only at the original ones but also at those particular individuals who, in accordance with contemporary literary theories, actively participate in the creation of the meaning of the letter. Reaching for the rhetorical model typical of communication theory, the authors

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

17

18

Preface

of the commentary wish to practically implement the latest methodologies in the study of the Letter of James but not only. The commentary on the Letter of James is the first one in a series of commentaries on the five antilegomena enumerated by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History: “Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognised by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name” (HE III 25:3). All the commentaries are ecumenical in nature. They present the common position of the authors, reached mainly due to the structural approach to the texts. The authors hope that the structural perspective and ecumenical reflection on the writings which used to be the subject of a dispute between Catholics and Protestants will contribute to the surge of interest in those controversial and, simultaneously, least known or analysed letters of the New Testament and to a better understanding of them.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

1.

Introduction

1.1

Textual Evidence and Canonicity

The earliest papyrus manuscripts of the Letter of James – P20 and P23 – date to the middle or late third century, P100 probably comes from the late third or early fourth century. They only contain portions of the text (P20 – James 2:19–3:9 on one sheet with nomina sacra written mainly in abbreviated forms; P23 – James 1:10-12.15–18 with abbreviated nomina sacra; P100 – James 3:13–4:4, 4:9–5:1). P54 that dates to the fifth or sixth century (James 2:16–18.22–26, 3:2–4) and P74 from the seventh century (James 1:1–6.8–19.21–23.25, 1:27–2:3.5–15.18–22, 2:25–3:2.5–6.10-12.14, 3:17–4:8.11–14, 5:1–3.7–9.12–14.19–20) are also fragmentary. The whole text has been preserved in the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Vaticanus. In Codex (Palimpsest) Ephraemi Rescriptus, the whole chapter 3 and the beginning of chapter 4 (James 1–2, 4:2–5:20) are missing. Among important ancient translations, the old Latin manuscript from Corbie (Codex Corbeiensis) should be mentioned, which is almost identical with the version known from the Codex Vaticanus,1 but it contains an interesting identification of James as the son of Zebedee.2 Since the transcripts are comparatively late, the text of the epistle of James is thought to be quite stable and homogeneous. It should be noted that no Western version of the text has been preserved, what is explained by late introduction and reception of James in the West, at least in the shape which is known today.3 The hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the absence of James in the Muratorian Canon (c. 180), in Adversus Marcionem by Tertullian (second/third century), or in the Mommsen List (c. 350). There is no indication that Papias (first/second century) knew the Letter of James, though he “uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise” (HE III 39:17).4 The same refers to the contemporary of Papias, Polycarp of Smyrna, who in his epistle to the Philippians “has made use of certain testimonies drawn from the First Epistle of Peter” (HE IV 14:9) and, as it turns out, from the First Epistle of John. In the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea enumerated James among antilegomena and even questioned its authenticity: “James […] is said to be the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles. But it is 1 D.G. McCartney, James (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids 2009, p. 39. 2 See below – chap. 1.6. 3 P.H. Davids, The Epistle of James, p. 59. 4 Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm [accessed: 18.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

20

Introduction

to be observed that it is disputed [ἰστέον δὲ ὡς νοθεύεται]; at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it” (HE II 23:25); “Among the disputed writings [ἀντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognised by many, are extant the socalled epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name” (HE III 25:3). It seems that Clement of Alexandria (second/third century) in his lost Hypotyposes, quoted by Eusebius, also counted the Letter of James among the writings which were not commonly accepted: “He has given in the Hypotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books, – I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter” (HE VI 14:1). It is not absolutely certain, however, whether the collection labelled here as ‘Catholic epistles’ included all the seven writings.5 Cassiodorus (fifth/sixth century) in De Institutione Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum 8 (PL 70:1120) wrote that, while Clement’s Greek commentaries contained references to James, their Latin translations did not mention the letter.6 It is believed that the first of Church Fathers in the East who openly advocated James as an Apostolic letter and quoted it as the Scripture was Origen (second/third century).7 He was also the first one to apply the term ‘Catholic’ to the collection of seven letters: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John and Jude. Earlier the term was occasionally used in reference to 1 John, sometimes to 1 Pet and the Epistle of Barnabas,8 and this was where the doubts concerning the meaning of the term in HE VI 14:1 came from. One of the first commentaries on James was written by Didymus the Blind, a student of Origen, in the fourth century. About 350, Cyril of Jerusalem linked, in a way typical of the Christian East, the Catholic letters with Acts and stated that James along with other Catholic letters should be seen as a complement to the message of the Acts, “and the seal of all, and the last [work] of the disciples’ are ‘the fourteen epistles of Paul” (Catechesis 4:36).9 The first among Western fathers who directly quoted James as the Scripture was Hilary of Poitiers (the fourth century): “[…] in the Father there is no change nor turning, because He has said through the prophet, ‘I am the Lord your God, and I am not changed’, and the apostle James [writes], ‘With Whom there is no change’”

5 D.R. Lockett, Letters from the Pillar Apostles: The Formation of the Catholic Epistles as a Canonical Collection, Eugene 2017, p. 74; cf. below. 6 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 35. 7 See below. 8 D. Nienhuis, R.W. Wall, Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude as Scripture: The Shaping of a Canonical Collection, Grand Rapids 2013, p. 23. 9 Ibid., p. 24.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Textual Evidence and Canonicity

(De Trinitate IV 8)10 cf. James 1:17. The canonicity of James was confirmed by the Council of Laodicea (363–364), the Easter Letter of Athanasius (367), and then by the councils of Hippo (393) and of Carthage (397 and 419). This was not a coincidence that since the fourth century in the West the term ‘canonical letters’ (epistule canonicae) started to be applied in reference to the seven general epistles and it replaced the term ‘Catholic letters’. This eliminated all doubts concerning the canonicity of those writings. The term was used, inter alia, by Augustine (fourth/ fifth century) or Cassiodorus.11 Jerome, it seems, had some second thoughts as to the provenance of James when in 392 r. in his work On Illustrious Men (2:2) he wrote: “James, who is called the brother of the Lord, […] wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority” (De viris illustribus 2:2).12 But in the letter from Bethlehem from 394 (Epistula 53:9), he enumerated the twenty-seven writings of NT in the traditional Western order and did not mention any further debates. Despite the bumpy road to canonicity, it might be assumed that the content of the letter – maybe in a noncanonical version – had been known and quoted since the first or the second century, and it inspired early Christian writers such as Clement I or Hermas, or, what is more probable, there existed a common source and tradition for James, the First Epistle of Clement and The Shepherd by Hermas, since in all three texts one can find very similar ideas, phrases and untypical but very characteristic lexis and phraseology. It is well known, however, that quotations and allusions may function in a particular community as fixed phrases, idioms or sayings and only later be rooted in the language of the community and be reflected in the texts created by it. It is then difficult to point out the source of such publicised excerpts and their original contexts.13 So it is in this case. Attention is most often drawn to the use of a very rare expression δίψυχος (verbatim: possessing two souls) in all the three works. The references to the example of Abraham (1 Clem. 10 and James 2:21–23, cf. Rom 4:1–6, Gal 3:6, Heb 11:17–19) or Rahab – 1 Clem. 12:1 (“Through faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved”)14 and James 2:25 (por. Heb 11:31) can be seen as a universal Christian topos, but it is difficult to explain

10 Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330204.htm [accessed: 18.06.2019]. 11 D. Nienhuis, R.W. Wall, Reading the Epistles, p. 24. 12 In: D.C. Allison, James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, New York–London–New Delhi–Sydney 2013, p. 18. 13 M. Głowiński, Mowa: cytaty i aluzje, [in:] M. Głowiński, Narracje literackie i nieliterackie, Kraków 1997, p. 281. 14 All quotations from: Clement of Rome, First Epistle, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ 1clement-hoole.html [accessed: 19.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

21

22

Introduction

in this way further parallels which appear e.g. in 1 Clem. 23:115 (“The Father whose mercies are over all things […] with gentleness and kindness bestoweth his favour upon them that come unto him with a pure mind”) and James 1:5, 1 Clem. 23:4 (“Take, for example, the vine: first it sheddeth its leaves, then cometh the bud, then the leaf, then the flower, after that the unripe grape, then the ripe grape”) and James 3:12, 1 Clem. 30:2 and James 4:6 (a characteristic reference to Prov 3:34 in a version different from the LXX: “for God, he saith, resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble”); 1 Clem. 38:2 (“Let the wise show his wisdom, not in words, but in good deeds”) and James 3:13. Even more similarities can be noted between James and The Shepherd by Hermas: The Second Commandment 27:2–3 First of all, speak evil of no man, neither take pleasure in listening to a slanderer. Otherwise thou that hearest too shalt be responsible for the sin of him that speaketh the evil, if thou believest the slander, which thou hearest; for in believing it thou thyself also wilt have a grudge against thy brother. So then shalt thou be responsible for the sin of him that speaketh the evil. Slander is evil; it is a restless demon, never at peace, but always having its home among factions. Refrain from it therefore, and thou shalt have success at all times with all men16

and James 4:11; The Eighth Commandment 38:2 (“For if thou be temperate as to what is good, so as not to do it, thou committest a great sin”) and James 4:17; The Eighth Commandment 38:10 to minister to widows, to visit the orphans and the needy, […], to be hospitable, […] to be tranquil, to show yourself more submissive than all men, to reverence the aged, to practice righteousness, to observe brotherly feeling, to endure injury, to be long-suffering, […] not to oppress debtors and indigent persons […]

and James 1:27, 1:7; The Ninth Commandment 39:1–6 Remove from thyself a doubtful mind and doubt not at all whether to ask of God, saying within thyself, ‘How can I ask thing of the Lord and receive it, seeing that I have committed

15 Only the most characteristic and equivalent examples have been cited. 16 All quotations from: The Shepherd of Hermas, trans. J.B. Lightfood http://www.earlychristianwritings. com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html [accessed: 19.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Textual Evidence and Canonicity

so many sins against Him?’ Reason not thus, but turn to the Lord with thy whole heart, and ask of Him nothing wavering, and thou shalt know His exceeding compassion, that He will surely not abandon thee, but will fulfill the petition of thy soul. For God is not as men who bear a grudge, but Himself is without malice and hath compassion on His creatures. […] and ask of the Lord, and thou shalt receive all things, and shalt lack nothing of all thy petitions, if thou ask of the Lord nothing wavering. But if thou waver in thy heart, thou shalt surely receive none of thy petitions. For they that waver towards God, these are the doubtful-minded, and they never obtain any of their petitions. But they that are complete in the faith make all their petitions trusting in the Lord, and they receive, because they ask without wavering, nothing doubting;

and James 1:5–6; The Eleventh Commandment 43:8 (“In the first place, he that hath the [divine] Spirit, which is from above, is gentle and tranquil and humble-minded, and abstaineth from all wickedness and vain desire of this present world”) and James 3:17; The Twelfth Commandment 45:2 (“[…] Ye must, therefore, abstain from the evil desires, that so abstaining ye may live unto God”) and James 4:7; The Second Similitude 51:5 (“[…] because the poor man is rich in intercession [and confession], and his intercession hath great power with God […]”) and James 2:5. It seems that Irenaeus (second century) alluded to James (or to its sources) as well.17 Adversus Haereses 4:16.2 (“[…] Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of Sabbaths, believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God […]”)18 is supposed to refer to James 2:23, and Adversus Haereses 5:1 [1] ([…] having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation, […] having been formed after His likeness, […] and made the first-fruits of creation [...])

17 D.G. Dunbar, The Biblical Canon, [in:] Hermeneutics, authority and Canon, ed. D.A. Carson, J.D. Woodbridge, Grand Rapids 1986, p. 337. 18 Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html [accessed: 19.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

23

24

Introduction

to James 1:18.22.19 This intertextual quality, with different points of reference, different architexts and derivatives will be characteristic of any further reflection on James. It might be interesting to note the attitude of the Syriac Church in which James was not enumerated among canonical books up to the fifth century and the appearance of Peshitta.20 The Doctrine of Addai (fourth/fifth century), a little earlier than Peshitta, indicates a much reduced canon of the NT when it gives recommendations concerning books to be used by Syriac Christians: But the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, which ye read every day before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus, these books read ye in the Churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written, except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have been called.21

In another place also Diatessaron by Tatian is added.22 On the other hand, The Two Ways, the oldest part of the Didache, like James, refers to Old Testament teaching and Jesus’ sermon on the mount. In III 2–3.5–6, forbidden sins to be avoided are listed, and in III 8–9 one can find the praise of conduct approved also in James: patience, mercy, kindness, peace, charity, justice and meekness. III 10, very similar to James 1:2.12 (“Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass”), should also be mentioned here.23 Then Didache V–VI contains a catalogue of behaviour and attitudes which are ‘the way of death’ and among them one can find qualities condemned also in James: […] false witness, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, selfwill, greediness, filthy talking […] persecutors of the good […] from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing revenge, not pitying a poor man, not labouring for the afflicted […] turning away from him who is in want, afflicting him who is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor […].

19 R.M. Grant, The Formation of the New Testament, New York 1965, p. 155. 20 D.C. Allison, James, p. 18. 21 The Doctrine of Addai, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/addai_2_text.html [accessed: 20.06.2019]. 22 W. Witakowski, Nauka apostoła Addaja: wstęp, przekład z języka syryjskiego, komentarz, STV 22/2 (1984), p. 204. 23 Didache, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html [accessed: 20.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Textual Evidence and Canonicity

Maybe, as in the case of 1 Clem. and The Shepherd by Hermas, these are loci communes for both James and the Didache, but it is also possible that the author of The Two Ways refers here to an earlier version of James. Between the fifth and the sixteenth centuries neither the Western Church nor the Churches of the East questioned the canonicity of James, although the letter was not as frequently commented on as other writings of the NT. Occasional controversies concerned mainly the authorship of the letter, attributed (although not quite definitively) to James the Just, brother of the Lord, frequently identified with James the Less, and less frequently with James, son of Zebedee.24 The Divine inspiration of James was discussed at times, especially among the Nestorians; doubts were also raised by the Syriac (Jacobite) bishop Gregory bar Hebraeus (thirteenth century). James’ authorship was questioned in the sixteenth century by Erasmus of Rotterdam who expressed his doubts in Annotationes in epistulam Jacobi in 1516.25 Erasmus wrote: “For neither does it [James] seem to bear anywhere that apostolic majesty and dignity, nor the large number of Hebraisms one would expect from James, who was bishop of Jerusalem”.26 Martin Luther, who invoked the ancient tradition and early Christian uncertainty, remained undoubtedly under the influence of Erasmus. However, for Luther, a greater problem than the uncertain authorship proved to be the content of the letter which he confronted with the assumptions of hermeneutics based on the theology of Paul the apostle and the criterion of apostolicity. In Luther’s opinion, James does not stand up to scrutiny. First of all, because ‘he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task [in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture].27 The message of James is different from

24 See below – chap. 1.6. 25 B.M. Metzger, The Canon of New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance, Oxford 1987, p. X. 26 In: W.H. Wachob, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James, Cambridge 2000, p. 32. 27 M. Luther, Prefaces to the Books of the Bible – 1522–1545, http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/ NEW1luther_f8.htm [accessed: 20.06.2019]. It seems, however, that Luther’s understanding of faith, which means laying hold of God’s justice and of Christ can be reconciled with the statement made by the author of James that ‘faith without works is dead’. In the sermon On Good Works from 1519. Luther wrote that the first of all good works is faith defined as personal experience of God which involves opening to the works of God who is always the agent; man is the beneficiary of the Divine activity. In other words – God in the Holy Spirit opens a man to Himself and God in Jesus Christ creates new relations between Himself and man. If faith is understood in this way, then man can get to know God, experience Him and make Him the reference point for the whole surrounding reality. What happens then is the renewal of the image of God, the renewal of man’s personal image and restoration of relations with other people. Such faith manifests itself in works which cannot be understood as human merits but as the result of the Divine activity in man.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

25

26

Introduction

St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first Epistle […] that show you Christ and teach you all that it is necessary and good for you to know […] Therefore St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.28

And ‘the nature of the Gospel’ means ‘teaching Christ’– this is the measure of apostolicity; James “does not once mention the Passion, the Resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times, but he teaches nothing about Him, and only speaks of common faith in God”29 so, according to the reformer, it cannot be counted among apostolic epistles. The negative appraisal of the theology, apostolicity and canonicity of James was followed by its transfer to the very end of the NT collection of books, along with Heb, Jude and Rev. Luther wrote: “I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him”.30 The change of order was also a reference to the ancient division into homologoumena and antilegomena. This was the layout of the first edition of the NT in Luther’s translation (the so-called September Testament – Septembertestament) from 1522, with Heb, James, Jude and Rev as antilegomena. Objections as to whether James was written by the apostle were also raised by Andreas Bodenstein, called Karlstadt. In the text Welche Bücher heilig und biblisch sind (De canonicis libris libellus) from 1521, he created a hierarchical division of the books of the NT, similar to ancient divisions. The Letter of James was located in the third group – among controversial books.31 The reformers’ doubts concerning the apostolic authorship of James were shared by cardinal Thomas de Vio, called Cajetan, one of the main opponents of Luther, the author of, inter alia, a series of biblical commentaries. Like Luther, and relying on the opinion of Jerome and the classification of Eusebius, he counted James, along with Heb, Jude as well as 2 and 3 John, among antilegomena.32 Debate on the canonicity and apostolicity of James and other writings compelled the Roman Catholic Church to take a clear position on the matter. The canonicity of the Letter of James was finally legitimised at the Council of Trent in 1546.

28 M. Luther, Preface to the New Testament 1545 (1522) http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/ NEW1luther_f8.htm [accessed: 20.06.2019]. 29 M. Luther, Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude 1545 (1522), http://www.godrules. net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm [accessed: 20.06.2019]. 30 Ibid. 31 B.M. Metzger, The Canon, p. X. 32 E. Reuss, History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Church, Edinburgh 1884, p. 271; B.M. Metzger, The Canon, p. X.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authorship

Reservations of the time of Reformation were revived again by the nineteenthcentury Lutheran Neo-orthodox movement and, in the case of James, most of the criticism was based on the interpretation of 2:14–26 in opposition to Paul. Since the time of F.C. Baur, the criticism of James included historical aspects – the then reconstruction of early Christianity assumed opposition between the Church (and theology) of Paul and the conservative Jewish Church of Jerusalem whose leader was James.33 Today, despite the fact that James’ authorship of the letter is frequently undermined and the epistle tends to be treated as a pseudepigraph, its canonicity is not questioned and in Protestant editions of the NT it usually takes the same position that it has in Catholic editions – it opens the collection of general letters, in line with the message of Gal 2:9 concerning ‘pillars of the Church’: the Letter of James, the Letters of Peter, of John (and the Letter of Jude). The exception here might be the editions based on the German Luther Bible, in which the hierarchy of books devised by the reformer of Wittenberg is preserved. In Greek, Slavic and Russian editions of the NT, James and other general letters sometimes directly follow the Acts of the Apostles. The Corpus Paulinum is located there after the Catholic letters. This stems from taking into account historical apostolic hierarchy: the writings of those who had been apostles before Paul directly follow the narrative which starts with the description of their activities. The sequence was known, inter alia, to Sz. Budny, who mentioned it in the Preface to his NT from 1574, and to the pioneers of modern critical editions of NT, based on the Byzantine text – K. Tischendorf, B.F. Wescott and F.J.A. Hort. This arrangement, however, has never been permanently rooted in the consciousness of Western Christianity, which, by locating the writings of the Apostle of the Nations before the Catholic letters, confirms the primacy of Paul’s theology.34

1.2

Authorship

Contrary to what one might expect, it is not easy to identify the author of the letter, although in the prescript he introduces himself as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1).35 One of the first attempts to more precisely identify the authorship of James was made by Origen (second/third century). In his Commentary on the Gospel of John, in which he, nota bene, quotes extract from

33 R. Bauckham, James. Wisdom of James, disciple of Jesus the Sage (New Testament Readings), London–New York 1999, p. 118–119; cf. B. Adamczewski, Jakub, brat Pański, i jerozolimska wspólnota ubogich, “Collectanea Theologica” 74 (2004) no 1, p. 67. 34 R. Bauckham, James at the Centre. A Jerusalem Perspective of New Testament, http://richardbauckham.co.uk/uploads/Accessible/James%20at%20the%20Centre.pdf, [accessed: 1.06.2017], p. 2. 35 See below – chap. 1.6.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

27

28

Introduction

the letter (e.g. in Commentarii in evangelium Ioannis XX 10:66 he quotes James 2:17 “faith without Works is dead”), he calls James an apostle, which coincides with information in 1 Cor 15:7, where Paul names James as the witness of the post-resurrection Christophany, the first of ‘all the apostles’. However, the term ‘apostle’ may be misleading here, since it is usually used to describe the Twelve, but 1 Cor 15:5–7 distinguishes between the Twelve and the apostles, and the meaning of the term itself is here closer to the lexical meaning – it indicates those who are Christ’s ‘delegates’ and proclaimers of the Gospel. It is impossible to definitely state in what way the term ‘apostle’ was understood by Origen – maybe in the narrower sense, as did Jerome later on, who identified James, the author of the letter, with James the apostle, son of Alphaeus36 (Matt 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13) and the son of Mary, one of the women observing the death of Jesus from a distance and later seen at the tomb (Mark 15:40). Jerome’s identification already aims at harmonizing the traditions referring to James as the apostle, one of the Twelve, and James, brother of the Lord (Mark 6:3).37 It seems that the identification of James, the author of the letter, with ‘the Lord’s brother’ also comes from Origen. However, it can only be found in the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Commentarii in Romanos IV 8), known in Latin translation by Rufinus of Aquileia, where excerpts from the letter were quoted (among others, the phrase from James 2:17 – Origenis Commentarius in epistulam ad Romanos II 9, 396–408). The identification might then have come from the translator, the contemporary of Jerome and well acquainted with him, rather than from Origen who in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X 17), referring to Matt 13:55 (“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”), does not say a word about the identity of James, although he identifies Jude as the author of the Letter of Jude (Jude 1).38 Eusebius of Caesarea is silent, too, though he describes in detail family connections of other ‘brothers of the Lord’ – Simon and Jude, the sons of Cleopas (HE III 11, 32:4–7). In Contra Celsum (1:47 and 2:13), Origen, following Josephus, undoubtedly describes James the Just as “brother of Jesus, called Christ”, whom he identifies with James described by Paul in Gal 1:19: “Paul […] says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord”.39 Nevertheless, he does not mention his affiliation with the Twelve. Since the time of Origen, nevertheless, it has been widely accepted that the person introducing

36 John Calvin was of the same opinion. 37 See below. 38 S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, Peabody 1980, p. 39, fn. 1; cf. J. Painter, Just James, p. 202–203. 39 All quotations from: Origen, Contra Celsum, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm [accessed: 21.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authorship

himself in the letter as James is James the apostle, the brother of the Lord, mentioned by Paul (Gal 2:9.12, 1 Cor 9:5, cf. Gal 1:19) and in Acts (12:17, 15:13–29, 21:18–19) as one of the authorities of the early Church, known, due to his piety, as the Just. The leadership of James in the Church was from the very beginning acknowledged by Paul who met James for the first time in the middle of the thirties, three years after his conversion (see Gal 1). In Gal 2:9, commenting on the conflict at Antioch, he enumerated James as the first of the so-called ‘pillars’ of the Church, before Peter/Cephas and John. The term used here, στῦλοι refers to the belief that some people play a particular role in the history of the world. Abraham was described as “the pillar of the world” in rabbinic writings,40 so it might be assumed that Paul ascribed a similar role in the history of the Church to James. James’ position seems to be higher than Peter’s, what is confirmed not only by his primacy among the ‘pillars’ but also the influence James had over Peter: Peter had seen nothing wrong in dining with the gentiles at Antioch “until certain people came from James”, which means Christians observing the Law of Moses (Gal 2:12). The intervention of James’ people in the relations within the Church at Antioch might suggest that his authority extended much beyond the community in Jerusalem. This could be confirmed, inter alia, by the letter of Clement of Rome to James included in Pseudo-Clementines (third/fourth century), in which he ascribed to James primacy and authority over all churches: “Clement to James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere”.41 The Acts of the Apostles provide more information on the leading role of James. At the beginning, the Church in Jerusalem was led by the Twelve, among whom primacy was given to Peter (Acts 1:15–26, 4:35–5:6, 6:1–6). It is very likely that at the beginning the leadership was neither institutional nor stationary. The Twelve exercised their authority from the position of the apostles, that is itinerant missionaries, proclaimers of the Gospel, who adjusted their mission and message to the needs of particular communities, over which they appointed superiors (bishops). This practice is confirmed, among others, by Clement of Rome: The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ […] Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved

40 Cf. W. Gajewski, Charyzmat, urząd, hierarchia, Kraków 2010, p. 126. 41 All quotations from Pseudo-Clementine writings from: Ph. Schaff, The Clementine Homilies and The Recognitions of Clement, http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0050-0150,_Pseudo_ Clemens,_Homilies_[Schaff],_EN.pdf [accessed: 17.04.2017] and Pseudo Clemens, Recognitions, http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0050-0150, [Schaff], EN.pdf [accessed: 17.04.2017].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

29

30

Introduction

them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe (1 Clem. 42:1–4).

A similar report regarding James the Just can be found in Clement of Alexandria, quoted by Eusebius (HE II 1:2–3): “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honour, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem”.42 It seems that here the figure of James the apostle, enumerated along with Peter and John, and the figure of James the Just were treated as separate ones. The first James would have been the same as James, the son of Zebedee and John’s brother. The practice of appointing the leaders of local Churches by the apostles sheds light on the reason why the status of James as the superior of the Church of Jerusalem improved only after Peter had left the city (Acts 9:32–10:48) and after James, John’s brother, had died as a martyr (Acts 12:1–2), which was around the year 42. Eusebius of Caesarea quotes after Apollonius (second century) a tradition which states that the Lord ordered his apostles not to leave Jerusalem “for twelve years” (HE V 19:14).43 It is very likely that the position of James had been built earlier, perhaps, as Paul suggests in Gal 1:18–19, since the middle of the thirties44 , so that in the forties Paul could take up the office offered to him. When, after the death of James, the Lord’s brother, Peter was released from prison thanks to God’s help, he headed for the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where he gave testimony about the Lord’s intervention and asked those praying there to inform James and the brothers (Acts 12:17). When controversy arose in the early Church over the status of converted gentiles, it was James who spoke with authority at the assembly known as the Council of Jerusalem, which was probably held in the late forties (Acts 15:13–21).45 Christianity still existed within Judaism and the increase in the number of gentile converts to Christianity who were not required to be circumcised and to observe the Law, as was the case at Antioch, was seen by the Christians of Jerusalem as a threat to Judaism.46 According to Acts, in spite of this fact, James came forward with a proposal for a compromise, which was very favourable to ethno-Christians: gentile converts to Christianity living at Antioch were freed from the requirement of circumcision and, from among the

42 43 44 45

For more information on James as bishop, see below. Since the paschal events in Jerusalem. Cf. W. Gajewski, Charyzmat, p. 125–127. The assembly of the apostles in Jerusalem is usually dated to 47/48 or 49 AD. Sometimes, however, it is dated to 43/44 – like in e.g. A. Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe. Ein Beitrag zur pauliniscjen Chronologie (Studien zum Neuen Testament 11), Gütersloh 1975, p. 315–321. 46 J. Ciecieląg, Jakub Sprawiedliwy, brat Pański jako postać historyczna, [in:] Ossuarium Jakuba, brata Jezusa. Odkrycie, które podzieliło uczonych, ed. Z.J. Kapera, Kraków 2003, p. 16.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authorship

numerous Jewish regulations, they were only expected to observe the very few rules known as the Noahide Laws, based on Lev 17:10–14, 18:6–26 – the laws concerning foreigners living in Israel47 and on Gen 9:4 – the laws concerning, as rabbis claimed later on, all people.48 The meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem resulted also in the division into ‘spheres of influence’ in missionary activity. Paul was supposed to conduct his mission among the gentiles, Peter – with the support of John and James – among the circumcised. And although Paul regards the status of the communities established by himself as equal to the status of the Church of Jerusalem, since he calls them ‘the Church of God’ (e.g. 1 Cor 1:2, 10:32, 11:16.22, 2 Cor 1:1), he still recognises the leadership of James over the whole of the then Christianity. When he comes back to Jerusalem from his third missionary journey (c. 58), he pays the visit to James and in his presence gives a detailed account of the success of his mission (Acts 21:18–19). He also wishes to offer to James donations for ‘the poor among the saints at Jerusalem’, collected during the journey (Rom 15:25–28). This last account included in Acts is of special nature since it alludes to tensions between Jewish Christians and Christians of gentile descent, and the conflict is resolved here in a different way than during the previous meeting of the apostles (Acts 15). James juxtaposes Paul’s missionary success among the gentiles with “many thousands of believers […] among the Jews’ who are zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20), clearly supports the observance of the Law of Moses and obliges Paul to do the same (Acts 21:23–26), perhaps because the number of the opponents of Paul and his missionary strategy increased in Jerusalem and James himself had to take into account those who earlier had been referred to by Paul as “false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us” (Gal 2:4–5). One must also keep in mind that the conduct of Christians in Jerusalem was closely scrutinised by the Jews, as the Christianity of the time still remained part of Judaism; thus, every departure from Jewish religious practice was noticed and censured. Keeping in mind the situation of Christians in Jerusalem and recognising the authority and leadership of James, Paul acted upon James’ advice and headed for the Temple to be purified as he had just come back from an expedition during which he had come in contact with unclean gentiles.

47 See below – chap. 1.5. 48 J. Gnilka, Piotr i Rzym, transl. W. Szymona, Kraków 2002, p. 117, 123; Gnilka argued that these regulations were introduced later and this is the reason why Paul does not mention them in Gal, when he describes the conflict at Antioch. Acts, on the other hand, supposedly described the way in which the rules concerning gentile Christians were introduced and not the circumstances of their creation. Thus it is not clear who the author was but the authority of James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, was so great that the authorship was attributed to him.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

31

32

Introduction

The authority of James was not based on his close cooperation with Jesus at the time of his public activity as was the case of the Twelve. What was, nevertheless, common for both the Twelve and James was the Christophanic legitimisation of their mission and function. Moreover, James’ position was probably strengthened by family relations which connected him with Jesus. As the head of Jesus’ household, he gathered around himself an influential group of ‘brothers’ who could be, in the narrow sense of the word, identified as his relatives (Acts 1:14), and in a broader sense, as conservative Jewish Christians (cf. Acts 2:29, 3:17, 7:2, 13:15.26.38, 22:1, 23:1.5.6, 23:17). Direct identification of James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, with the Lord’s brother appears only in Gal 1:19: “I did not see any other apostle,49 except James the Lord’s brother” (Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου). On the basis of the synoptic Gospels, we can get to know the names of Jesus’ brothers, and James is enumerated among them. However, the context in which James is mentioned in Gal and in Acts, and that of Matt and Mark, are totally different. Matthew for example relates the amazement of the inhabitants of Jesus’ hometown with the wisdom of the one who was known there as the son of a carpenter, of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Jude: He came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?” (Matt 13:54–56).

Mark describes a harsher reaction and suggests that the relatives and neighbours of Jesus were scandalised by his behaviour: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him” (Mark 6:3 uses here the words ἐσκανδαλίζοντο ἐν αὐτῷ). There are several traditional theories concerning the family relationship of Jesus and James, Joseph, Jude, Simon and the unnamed ‘sisters’.50 According to the first theory, brothers and sisters of Jesus were his cousins. Their father was supposedly Cleopas and their mother Mary but different from the mother of Jesus (Mark 3:18, 15:40, John 19:25). This Mary is sometimes thought to be the 49 The term ‘apostles’ should not be limited here to the circle of the Twelve. 50 Cf. M. Rosik, Church and Synagogue (30-313 AD). Parting of the Ways, Berlin 2019, p. 53–54; Z.J. Kapera, Wprowadzenie do problematyki badań nad tzw. ossuarium Jakuba, syna Józefa, brata Jezusa, in: Ossuarium Jakuba, p. 48; M. Wróbel, Jakub, syn Józefa, brat Jezusa, [in:] Ossuarium Jakuba, p.138–139.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authorship

sister of Jesus’ mother and Cleopas is seen as Joseph’s brother (cf. HE III 11:1). According to the second hypothesis, accepted, inter alia, by Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem IV 19) and propagated usually in Churches of Protestant provenance, ‘brothers and sisters of Jesus’ are his siblings that were born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus. The third theory assumes that Joseph had married Mary as a widower and already had children from his first marriage to Salome. Such a thesis is also proposed by the author of the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James from the second century (9:2–3): “Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she [Mary] is a young girl. […] And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping”51 and by The History of Joseph the Carpenter from the fifth century (2:3–4): There was a man whose name was Joseph […] and after the manner of all men, he married a wife. Moreover, he begot for himself sons and daughters […] Now these are their names – Judas, Justus, James, and Simon. The names of the two daughters were Assia and Lydia. At length the wife of righteous Joseph […] departed this life.52

A still different explanation is offered by the Gnostic (probably Valentinian) Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi. In the First Apocalypse of James, Jesus himself clearly says that the relation between him and James is not of biological nature: “I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially”.53 More details can be found in The Second Apocalypse of James. James is the son of Theuda, although some scholars claim that this might be a different orthographic version of the name Zebedee,54 which would mean his (a bit unlikely) identification with James the Great, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John (Matt 4:21–22, 10:2–4, 20:20, Mark 1:19–20, 3:16–19, 10:35). But it has to be remembered that Zebedee as the father of James, the author of the letter, is mentioned, inter alia, by Isidore of Seville (seventh century) and by the Codex of Corbie (tenth century). The term ‘brother’, used by Jesus in reference to James, is explained by James’ mother who probably was Jesus’ wet-nurse: “Do not be frightened, my son, because he said ‘My brother’ to you (sg.). For you (pl.) were nourished with this same milk. Because of this he calls me ‘My mother’. For he is not a stranger to us. He is your step-brother

51 The Protoevangelium of James, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm [accessed: 22.06.2019]. 52 The History of Joseph the Carpenter, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0805.htm [accessed: 22.06.2019]. 53 The First Apocalypse of James, transl. W.R. Schoedel, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ apocalypsejames1st.html [accessed: 22.06.2019]. 54 W. Myszor, Pierwsza i druga Apokalipsa Jakuba z V Kodeksu z Nag Hammadi, „Śląskie Studia Historyczno-Teologiczne” 33 (2000), p. 62.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

33

34

Introduction

[...]”.55 Origen followed the same path when he claimed that James was regarded as “the brother of the Lord not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine” (Contra Celsum 1:47). Until the time of the Reformation, the most widely accepted theory, mainly due to the authority of Jerome and of Epiphanius of Salamis, seemed to be the view that James was one of Joseph’s children from the first marriage. According to this tradition, Joseph was much older than Mary – this is also the way in which he was depicted by early Christian iconography. Ancient writers argued that Jesus was an only child and James, the author of the letter, was his cousin. John’s description of the scene at the foot of the cross, when Jesus entrusts Mary to John (John 19:25–27), is sometimes quoted as an argument supporting this theory. If Jesus really had a brother born of Mary, then in accordance with the Jewish law, the obligation to take care of Mary would have fallen onto him.56 But problems appear on at least two levels – that of the language and that of the customs. The Greek language distinguishes between a brother and a cousin. The first one is described by the word ἀδελφός, the second one by the word ἀνεψίος. A cousin, and all the more Joseph’s son from the first marriage, would have belonged to the circle of Jesus’ closest relatives and would have had to take care of Mary. The explanation might be the fact that Jesus’ relatives did not understand his mission and did not support it. On the contrary – as has already been mentioned – Jesus’ teaching and activity scandalised them. The author of John’s Gospel openly says: “For not even his brothers believed in him” (John 7:5), which might mean that they turned their backs on Jesus and his mother, not offering any help. They believed in him only after his resurrection. Thus, the conversion of James might have taken place after resurrection, maybe even as a result of Christophany. In 1 Cor 15:7 Paul does not offer any details concerning the appearance of the risen Christ to James so we do not know whether this Christophany was similar to the ones described by the evangelists (Matt 28:17–20, Mark 16:12–18, Luke 24:13–50, John 20:19–29, 21:4–22) or whether it was as dramatic as the one experienced by Paul the apostle (Acts 9:1–9, 22:6–11, 26:12–18).57 55 The Second Apocalypse of James, transl. C.W. Hedrick, http://gnosis.org/naghamm/2ja.html [accessed: 23.06.2019]. 56 M. Rosik, Church and Synagogue, p. 53. 57 A Christophany is an appearance of risen Christ to his disciples in such a way that they can talk to him, touch him, have a meal with him, listen to his teaching or take his orders. The descriptions of Christophanies are mainly included in the Gospels (Mark 16:9–20, Matt 28:9–10.16–20, Luke 24:1–49, John 20:1–18, 20:19–21:19). There is also a description of a Christophany in Acts 1:3–9, and both Acts and Paul’s letters a number of times refer to the appearance of risen Jesus. Strictly speaking, a Christophany should be understood as the appearance of Christ after his resurrection and before ascension; X. Léon-Dufour, Chrystofanie, [in:] Słownik teologii biblijnej, ed. X. Léon-Dufour, transl. K. Romaniuk, Poznań–Warszawa 1973, p. 128. Paul’s vision is sometimes also called a Christophany

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authorship

It seems that some more light is shed on the Christophany by The Church History of Eusebius and by the apocryphal GHeb (early second century) quoted by Jerome. According to HE II 1:4, which is based here on the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter”. The actual content of the message was not described but it can be assumed that the knowledge was passed through a Christophany. More details can be found in GHeb: [after the resurrection of the Saviour] the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the servant of the priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the Lord’s cup until he should see him risen again from among them that sleep)

and again after a little, “Bring ye, saith the Lord, a table and bread”, and immediately it is added, “He took bread and blessed and brake and gave it unto James the Just and said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep”.58 If the term ‘the Lord’s cup’ is understood as a reference to the Last Supper, this means that the author of GHeb believed James was one of the Twelve and maybe also a biological kin of Jesus, indicated here by the term ‘brother’ used by the Saviour, even though – as has been shown above on the example of Gnostic literature – the word did not necessarily describe family ties. Moreover, it is not known whether this James, at the time when GHeb was created, was identified with the author of the Letter of James. Regardless of the shape of James’ Christophany, it might be assumed that the resurrection and the appearance of Jesus turned him into one of the most zealous and active apostles and the prominent leader of the Church. The confirmation of James’ transition from the path of scepticism and indignation at Jesus to faith could be detected in the Letter of James itself and in the tradition which calls James the Just. The Letter of James points out the need to take care of the poor, of orphans and widows, to show mercy, to help the suffering and the sick (James 1:27, 2:2–6.8.13.15–16, 5:13–15), which could spring from the remembrance of the author’s own negligence in looking after his relatives, and especially after the mother of Jesus, regardless of the degree of relatedness between them. The same might apply to the references to the sermon on the mount, which could be interpreted as a desire to remember, preserve and, most importantly, to put into

by exegetes (e.g. H. Windisch, Die Christophanie vor Damascus und ihre religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen, ZNW 31 (1932) p. 1–23) and this approach has been adopted in our commentary. 58 The Gospel of the Hebrews, transl. M.R. James, http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrewsmrjames.html [accessed: 23.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

35

36

Introduction

practice the teaching and legacy of Jesus, a relative who had been unappreciated and accused of mischief in his lifetime (James 1:19–26, 2.10–11.18, 3:12, 4:2–7), and the mentions about the need “to keep a tight rein on the tongue” could be based on the memory of arguments with Jesus, and utterances which denigrated or condemned him (James 1:20.26, 3:2.5–6.8–10.14.16, 4:11–12, 5:19). The call to reflect faith in works and not to just declare it, the emphasis on the power of prayer, the encouragement to persevere, and, first of all, the faithfulness and attachment to Judaism present in the Letter of James resulted in the identification of its author, at least since the time of Origen, with James the Just, and the term ‘just’ should be understood here in the Old Testament manner, similarly to the way Joseph is called in Matt 1:19. According to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (second century) James was called the Just by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime. He also appoints James a future leader of the disciples: The disciples said to Jesus, “We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?” Jesus said to him “No matter where you come it is to James the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist” (GTh 12).59

It cannot be clearly stated whether the author of The Gospel of Thomas considered James to be the Lord’s brother; he probably did not count him among the Twelve, but the text shows that James, the future leader of the Church in Jerusalem, due to his faithfulness to the Jewish tradition, earned the name of the Just even outside the Christian mainstream already in Jesus’ lifetime. The fact is also confirmed in Hypomnemata by Hegesippus (c. 110–180), quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea: James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day […]. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias,60 which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the people’ and ‘Justice’ (HE II 23:4.7).

Origen, commenting on the mention made by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (XX 9:1) about “James, a brother of Jesus called Christ” also identifies this James with James the Just, even though Josephus himself does not use the nickname: “[…] these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)” (Contra Celsum 1:47). James the

59 The Gospel of Thomas, transl. B. Layton, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/ gospelthomas12.html [accessed: 24.06.2019]. 60 The meaning of the nickname might be a reference to the eschatological vision of the walls of new Zion and a new temple in Isa 54:11–12.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authorship

Just was also mentioned in The Second Apocalypse of James from Nag Hammadi: “This is the discourse that James the Just spoke in Jerusalem”.61 The picture of James as a Jewish traditionalist who shaped the Church in Jerusalem in the Jewish manner can also be found in Acts and in Gal, although James is not called the Just in them. On the basis of Gal 2:12 it might be assumed that James observed the Jewish regulations concerning food (based on the text of Lev 20:23–26). As has already been mentioned, Christians who gathered around him considered themselves to be a movement within Judaism; a movement whose aim would be the renewal of Israel. This was supposed to be the meaning of the prediction of a new covenant, recorded by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31–34). The organisational structure of the Church in Jerusalem was probably modelled by James according to patterns known from Judaism – apparently, it was his idea to create the college of presbyters or elders, known from synagogues (Acts 15:2.6.22). It is clear that Jewish Christians in the first years after the resurrection were associated with the temple of Jerusalem (Acts 2:46, 3:1) and it cannot be ruled out that some of them arrived at the temple to offer sacrifice (Acts 21:23–26), albeit this is not certain. It seems that the awareness of the fact that the sacrifice of Christ replaced the offerings of the old Law very quickly dawned on his followers. The observation corresponds to the presentation of James in the fragmentary Anabatmoi Jakobou, highly valued by the Ebionites, where James was depicted as the opponent of the temple worship.62 More details about the life of James and his ‘justice’ are provided by Hegesippus’ Hypomnemata, already mentioned above: James did not drink wine, did not eat meat, wore linen clothes, did not cut his hair, did not bathe or anoint his body; instead, he prayed in the holy place begging forgiveness for his people so often “that his knees became hard like those of a camel” (HE II 23:3–6). Such a description might be the indication of his priestly function and of observing the Nazirite vows (Num 6:2–8); the reference to Amos 9:11–12 in James’ speech in Acts 15:13.15–18 could be the confirmation of this fact.63 James’ Nazirite vows are also suggested by Epiphanius of Salamis, who draws upon the apocryphal tradition of The Protoevangelium of James and James’ descent from the house of David as he was Joseph’s firstborn son (Pan. 29:4 [1–3] , 78:13 [5–8] ).64 He also claims, quoting the Ebionites, that James did not get married and preserved his virginity throughout his lifetime

61 The Second Apocalypse of James, transl. C.W. Hendrick, http://gnosis.org/naghamm/2ja.html [accessed: 24.06.2019]. 62 W. Myszor, Pierwsza i druga Apokalipsa, p. 58. 63 B. Chilton, James in Relation to Peter, Paul and the Remembrance of Jesus, in: The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, ed. B. Chilton, J. Neusner, Louisville 2001, p. 146–147. 64 J. Painter, Just James, p. 209.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

37

38

Introduction

(Pan. 30:2 [6] ),65 although Paul the apostle seems to suggest just the opposite – 1 Cor 9:5. On the other hand, in the light of James 5:12, where swearing is directly forbidden, taking any vow and keeping it by the author of the letter does not seem very probable. Hegesippus’ remark about James’ refusal to bathe does not sound convincing, either, all the more because he was allowed to enter the holy place (HE II 23:5–6) – this would mean he did not observe the requirement of ritual purification which does not correspond to the image of a righteous Jew. Pseudo-Clementines – The Recognitions (Rec. I) describe in detail the associations of James with Jerusalem; Epiphanius confirms that he was appointed a bishop of Jerusalem, or even “the bishop of bishops”66 by Jesus himself, saying that James was the first to whom the Lord had given his throne on Earth (Pan. 78:2 [2]). Eusebius in turn, quoting Clement, maintained that James the Just was nominated by Peter and John (HE II 1:2–3): “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem”. Thanks to James, the Church in Jerusalem grew and developed.67 Apostles sent by James reported their missions, he was involved in debates with priests and rabbis (e.g. with Gamaliel) and taught mainly the inhabitants of Jerusalem, very often on the steps leading to the temple, quoting the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, just as the author did in the Letter of James. The Recognitions (Rec. IV 35) suggest that he was also the guardian of the orthodoxy of Christian teaching: “Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him”. This might correspond to James 3:1, and especially to James 3:13–18, where the author of the letter warns the readers against unbridled ambition and suggests a test to check if wisdom and common sense are reflected by the practice of Christian life. The Recognitions also inform us that James walked with a limp. The accident supposedly happened during a tumult raised at the temple by an ‘enemy’. The report resembles later descriptions of the martyrdom of James, so it can be treated as the anticipation of those events: Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him (Rec. LXX).

65 Ibid. 66 Such a title is used a number of times in reference to James in Pseudo-Clementine literature. 67 The Recognitions of Clement, http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0050-0150,_Pseudo_ Clemens,_Recognitions_[Schaff],_EN.pdf [accessed: 17.04.2017].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Authorship

On the margin of one of the manuscripts there is a note informing that the ‘enemy’ was Saul (cf. Acts 8:1–2, Gal 1:13–14, HE II 1:8–9). Acts 15:22–29 do not give us information on who the author of the letter to the community at Antioch was; they suggest collective authorship. Similarly, Epiphanius of Salamis (fourth/fifth century) in his Panarion (28:2.3) identified Cerinthus as the one who caused confusion and disturbance in town (Acts 15:24) and concluded that, in response, the apostles gathered around James wrote a letter to Antioch.68 However, many similarities between James and Acts can be detected, e.g. a similar beginning (Acts 15:23 and James 1:1–2) and the stress on the need to protect the community of the addressees from sin and menace of the world (Acts 15:29 and James 1:27).69 Extra-biblical tradition may also lead us to suppose that the main author of the letter was James since the epistolographic activity of the leader of the Church in Jerusalem is widely reported.70 In the apocryphal Secret Book of James from Nag Hammadi James is described as Jesus’ chosen confidant, and PseudoClementines quote his correspondence with Peter (The Letter of Peter to James) and with Clement (The Letter of Clement to James). An interesting reference to James’ epistolography can be found in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai. James witnessed the raising of the daughter of queen Protonike, emperor Claudius’ wife, from the dead; reportedly, the resuscitation came about when the mother placed the cross of Christ on the body of the dead girl: James, the director of the Church of Jerusalem, who with his own eyes saw the deed, gave a written account, and sent it to the Apostles […] in the cities of their countries. And also the Apostles themselves gave written accounts, and made known to James whatsoever that Christ had done by their hands, and these were read before all the multitude of the people of the church.71

James died as a martyr in 62 (according to Josephus) or in 69 (according to Hegesippus). The best-known report comes from Hegesippus and was written down by Eusebius: During Passover, James proclaimed Jesus as Christ from the top of the temple. Many pilgrims who had arrived in Jerusalem and heard his words believed in Christ. Then the Pharisees who had provoked James to give the testimony,

68 69 70 71

J. Painter, Just James, p. 208. Cf. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 24. Cf. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 10. The Doctrine of Addai, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/addai_2_text.html [accessed: 25.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

39

40

Introduction

said again to one another, “We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.” […] So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, “I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, “Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.” And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ (HE II 23:17–19).

The description provided by Clement of Alexandria is laconic in comparison to the one given by Hegesippus, but it confirms the circumstances of James’ death: “[James the Just] was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller” (HE II 1:4). The death of James was also described by Josephus who confirms the fact of James’ stoning: When therefore Ananus […] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified (Ant. XX 9:1).

The account of Josephus, even if it was edited with the help of a Christian, is older and seems to be very reliable. James and ‘some others’ died in 62 by being stoned, after a sentence issued by the Sanhedrin and provoked by Ananus, the High Priest, who took the opportunity of the interim period between the rule of two Roman prefects and called the assembly. The accusation brought against them concerned – quite absurdly, when we take into account the widespread belief in James’ justice – violation of the Law of Moses. Josephus clearly indicates that it did not sound very convincing to the public. The description given by Hegesippus locates James’ death closer to the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans and shows it as a lynch inflicted by Pharisees

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Dating

and scribes, appalled by the power of James’ testimony about Jesus.72 A description of the martyrdom of James which also follows the tradition known to Hegesippus is included in The Second Apocalypse of James from Nag Hammadi. It develops many elements known from previous accounts: And they were there and found him standing beside the columns of the temple beside the mighty corner stone. And they decided to throw him down from the height, and they cast him down. And they [...] seized him and struck him as they dragged him upon the ground. They stretched him out and placed a stone on his abdomen. They all placed their feet on him, saying “You have erred!” Again they raised him up, since he was alive, and made him dig a hole. They made him stand in it. After having covered him up to his abdomen, they stoned him in this manner. And he stretched out his hands and said this prayer – not that (one) which it is his custom to say.73

The whole prayer of James is quoted in the text and it obviously contains Gnostic elements. The juxtaposition of the letter with the above attempt at pointing out the right James, the author of the letter, seems to be in many ways successful. The argument supporting his authorship could be his authority in the early Church; elements common with the synoptic tradition, especially that of Matthew; references to wisdom literature and to figures known from the Old Testament, etc. But the traditional view which attributes the authorship of the letter to James the Just is, at least partially, frequently contested today. The doubts mainly stem from controversies concerning the dating of the text.

1.3

Dating

Dating of the letter is difficult due to lack of any internal criteria and very scarce external references. Generally, two tendencies can be distinguished: the first one situates the letter before the year 60 or even in the early 40-ties, right after the moment when James became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem; the second one dates the letter to the late first century. The supporters of the first view usually accept James the Just as the author; the supporters of the other view assume that this is a pseudonymous text.74

72 É. Trocmé, Pierwsze kroki chrześcijaństwa, transl. J. Gorecka-Kalita, Kraków 2004, p. 48. 73 W. Myszor, Pierwsza i druga Apokalipsa, p. 76. 74 I. Mongstad-Kvammen, Toward a Postcolonial Reading, p. 17–18.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

41

42

Introduction

The difference is significant and the implications far-reaching: if the early dating of James is accepted, it means that the letter is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, texts of the NT and should be a reference point for the writings created later. If, however, the second option is accepted, then James has to be included among the latest writings and the intertextual dependencies have to be inverted. The acceptance of one or the other approach also determines the designation of the addressees of the letter and their more precise specification, which actually comes down to the definition and understanding of the term ‘diaspora’ in James 1:2. Derivatives of both theories appear in literature analysing the Letter of James and they very often start with the juxtaposition of James and the letters of Paul. 1) The letter really comes from James the Just, it was written comparatively early, even in the forties AD, before the Council of Jerusalem and before the Letter to the Galatians. The best evidence of this would be quite primitive theology, almost total absence of Christological reflection, few references to Paul’s theology, which seem to be the result of personal contacts rather than of the knowledge of the letters of the Apostle of the Nations, a comparatively large number of references to the Law and sapiential tradition. Although the references and the reinterpretation of the Law could indicate affiliation of James with the tradition of Jesus, its written sources cannot be unequivocally defined (e.g. Q) and the author’s familiarity with the oral tradition is assumed. Also, the very concise manner in which the author presents himself might indicate the early dating – James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, does not have to introduce himself any further, because he is perfectly well known in the Christian community – he is the pillar of the Church.75 2) The letter could have been written by James the Just as a reaction to the false understanding of Paul’s idea of justification by faith, widely spread in the environment of the recipients of the letter. Crucial in this theory would be defining the term ‘faith’ used by Paul and by James. This means that the text must have been created in the late fifties or in the early sixties, certainly before the year 62 or, alternatively, before 69 (the date of James’ martyrdom).76 It might have been addressed to those Jewish Christians who, for economic reasons, due to increasing famine or persecution, had to leave Jerusalem and/or Judea.77 What is accentuated

75 See, inter alia M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, p. 23–24; W.G. Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg 1980, p. 363; P.J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth, Collegeville 2004, p. 21, 24; J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny), Częstochowa 2011, p. 35; I. Mongstad-Kvammen, Toward a Postcolonial Reading, p. 19–20. 76 F. Mussner, Jakobusbrief 2 (THKNT), Freiburg 1967, p. 7; P.J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem, p. 21, 24, M. Hengel, Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik, [in:] Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III (Wissenschaftlische Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament), ed. M. Hengel, Tübingen 2002, p. 523. 77 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 10–11.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Dating

in both theories is the absence of any references to the fall of the temple. But it has to be stressed that the text does not mention in any way the temple worship, either. 3) The letter is a pseudonymous text created after the death of James the Just, possibly even after the year 70 and referring to the controversy between the environment of Jewish Christians and Hellenistic Churches and concerning Paul’s idea of justification by faith, disregard for the Mosaic Law and, consequently, the importance of deeds.78 Jewish Christians of Jerusalem could have come across these ideas after their escape from Judea to Pella, a pagan city of Decapolis, situated on the east bank of the river Jordan. It seems quite probable that by invoking the figure of James, the author harks back to the glory days of Jerusalem Church and expresses the longing for ideal relations understood as compliance with the law and a wish to create an enclave among the gentiles and ethno-Christians. This would also explain the fact of almost total omission of the mention of pagans in James. 4) The letter is a pseudonymous text; the author – writing it at the end of the first or at the beginning of the second century – makes use of the authority of James the Just. It is difficult to say whether he knew Paul’s teaching about justification by faith and deliberately ignored it, or whether Paul’s ideas were not commonly known in his environment, or maybe they did not constitute an important reference point. The author knows Hellenistic culture very well and has a perfect command of the Greek language,79 much better than it could be assumed on the basis of James’ biography reconstructed above. The omission of themes which were central for Jewish Christian theology (like circumcision, Shabbat, the temple, ritual purity, dietary laws), and focusing on ethical aspects of the law rather than on those referring to worship and ritual are seen as an argument against James’ authorship of the letter.80 The assumption is that the author of the letter might have been a well-educated Jewish Christian from among Hellenistic Jews living in Jerusalem, for whom Greek was their mother tongue,81 and not a Jew from Galilee, a relative of Jesus. The Jewish descent of the author would explain the presence of Semitic elements in the text. But it is also assumed that the author of the Letter of James might have been a pagan of Greek descent converted first to Judaism (a so-called God-fearer), and then converted to Christianity. The need of a proselyte to get acquainted with the Jewish heritage could have resulted in the creation of the Semitic background visible in the letter. References to persecution and incidents

78 M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakubus, p. 31; W.G. Kümmel, Einleitung, p. 364; P.J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem, p. 23; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 18; I. Mongstad-Kvammen, Toward a Postcolonial Reading, p. 23–24. 79 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 29. 80 M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, p. 31; W.G. Kümmel, Einleitung, p. 364; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 15–16. 81 M. Hengel, The Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ, Eugene 2003, p. 9–10.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

43

44

Introduction

might suggest the time of Domitian, Roman emperor from 81 to 96,82 and the same applies to similarities to 1 Clem. and The Shepherd of Hermas, texts written at the end of the first century. 5) An amalgamated or ‘hybrid’ theory. Some of the material can really come from oral or partly written teaching of James the Just from the years 35–45, in which no references to Paul’s epistolography can be found. The letter in the shape known since the third or the fourth century is a compilation of his teaching with elements introduced later, very likely in the late first or early second century (the suggested time span is between 70 and 130), and they may, to varying degrees and in different way, take into account Paul’ teaching, already widely known in the whole Christian world. Even though the editor of the compilation had a very good command of Greek, part of the material still bears Semitic characteristics.83 The consequence of the ‘hybrid’ theory are attempts at separating the original Jewish layer of the text from its more linguistically and theologically advanced Hellenistic layer.84 Nowadays the fourth theory seems to gain the strongest support although there are also many supporters of the first theory. There also appear new variations to the theory, explaining the use of very good Greek on the one hand and the climate or expressions which reveal Semitic approach and thinking on the other hand. An interesting suggestion appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century – it assumed that James might be a Greek translation of the original Aramaic text.85 The composition of the letter in Aramaic and not in Greek could explain a certain delay in the transmission of its content, especially in the Western Church where the knowledge of the Aramaic language was uncommon. Before the original text was translated into Greek, its Aramaic copies were circulated among Christian communities in Palestine and Syria, possibly also in Egypt. This could explain common elements included in both James and the Didache. It is worth noticing that The Apocryphon of James from Nag Hammadi mentions the fact that the text was originally composed “in the Hebrew alphabet”.86 The phrase is not explicit – it may refer to the Hebrew or Aramaic language of the original letter, but its aim might also be to make the text sound credible and reliable. The interest of the peripheral currents of early Christianity in the figure of James (as evidenced by the texts mentioned above, particularly the Gnostic ones – The Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypses of James,

82 B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, Garden City 1964, p. 4; W. Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbrief, Stuttgart 1986, p. 33. 83 See below. 84 Research started by W.L. Knox, The Epistle of James, JTS 46 (1945), p. 10–17. 85 F.C. Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, London 1924, p. 65–70. 86 The Apocryphon of James, transl. F.E. Williams, http://gnosis.org/naghamm/jam.html [accessed: 27.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary, style, structure

The Apocryphon of James from Nag Hammadi, or writings popular among the Ebionites – The Gospel of the Hebrews and The Protoevangelium of James) could result in the lack of trust of the Christian mainstream and, consequently, in very weak transmission and reception of the Letter of James in the first two centuries. In the nineteenth century, independently, there emerged opinions (expressed, inter alia, by Protestant theologians – F. Spitty and L. Massebieau), which undermined the originally Christian character of the letter, and they focused on the explanation of its Semitic elements. Lack of explicitly articulated Christian soteriology, references to Jewish literature, and, above all, very rare invocations to the person of Jesus Christ on the one hand, and the development of textual criticism and the view that the name of Jesus in 1:1 and 2:1 were later additions87 changed the perception of the letter into a piece of writing created by a Jewish author for a Jewish community.88 Today, however, such extreme views are considered to be marginal.

1.4

Vocabulary, style, structure

The language of the Letter of James is, along with Heb, the example of the best New Testament ancient Greek. The vocabulary of James does not seem to be very rich at first glance since it only contains around 570 lexemes. The lexemes are, however, very unusual. Around seventy-five of them cannot be found anywhere else in the NT, but most of those hapax legomena were derived from the LXX. Only six of them cannot be found either in the LXX or in the NT,89 but they are used in extra-biblical classical literature – βρύω (‘to gush’ – James 3:11), ἐνάλιος (‘living in the sea’, ‘a sea monster’ – James 3:7), εὐπειθής (‘meek’, ‘obedient’ – James 3:17), ἐφήμερος (‘daily’ – James 2:15), θρησκός (‘religious’ – James 1:26), κατήθεια (‘gloom’, ‘dejection’ – James 4:9). Even this brief overview shows that the greatest number of extraordinary and extra-biblical hapax legomena can be found in chapter 3 and, interestingly, they were all used to illustrate a context which reflects Semitic culture.90 On the lexical level, special attention should be paid to neologisms employed by the author of James, particularly to δίψυχος, already mentioned when the relationship between James and 1 Clem. and The Shepherd of Hermas was discussed. It was not used in literature preceding James and is thus difficult to translate (lit. ‘double-souled’, ‘possessing two souls’). We do not know if it was coined by the author of James or if it had been used in the sources on which James, Clement and 87 In the oldest known copies of James, coming from the third and fourth centuries, these fragments are missing. 88 D.G. McCartney, James, p. 33–34. 89 J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 25. 90 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

45

46

Introduction

Hermas based their texts. It seems, however, that the author of the neologism was inspired by idioms employed in psalms, which in turn could point at the authorship of James. E.g. Ps 12:3 mentions double-hearted people: ‫ְבֵּלב ָוֵלב‬. The LXX translates this phrase literally as ἐν καρδίᾳ καὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ.91 In James, the idea of duplicity, being double-minded or inconsistent is reflected by the adjective δίψυχος. Greek word formation is reflected in hapax legomena and neologisms such as χρυσοδακτύλιος (‘wearing a gold ring’ – James 2:2), ἀνεμιζόμενος (‘tossed by the wind’ – James 1:6), ἀποσκίασμα (‘shadow’ – James 1:17), ἀπείραστος (‘not tempted’ – James 1:13), ἀνέλεος (‘without mercy’ – James 2:13), or δαιμονιώδης (‘devilish’ – James 3:15), ῥυπαρία (‘impurity’ – James 1:21). The perfect command of the Greek language of the author of James is also revealed when he seems to be correcting the style of other New Testament writings or their sources. A good example is Matt 5:34–35, where the author uses a prepositional phrase based on Semitic syntax: “swear by heaven or by the earth” μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως· μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. In accordance with classical Greek syntax, the form which should be used here is the so-called accusativus of an oath, used in James 5:12: μὴ ὀμνύετε, μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον92 which clearly refers to the sermon on the mount. Despite the excellent Greek language characteristic of James, it is difficult to indisputably define the style of the letter, because the text too often brings to mind Semitic literature and culture to be called purely Hellenistic.93 On the lexical level, this is reflected in the use of typically Jewish terms such as γέεννα (‘geenna’ – James 3:7) or συναγωγή, (‘synagogue’ – James 2:2). A characteristic Semitic feature is also – common in James and in the Gospel of Matthew – omission of the word ‘God’ and the use of metonymy or paraphrasing: ἡ σοφία ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη ‘wisdom which comes from above’ – James 3:15 or simply ἄνωθεν σοφία ‘wisdom from above’– James 3:17 instead of ‘wisdom from God’ or ὁ οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν “heaven gave rain” [in response to Elijah’s prayer], instead of ‘God sent rain’ in James 5:18. In the past, a distinction was made between the Hellenised Judaism of the diaspora and the Hellenised Palestinian Judaism, and they were contrasted with ‘pure’ Palestinian Judaism. Today – as Martin Hengel rightly says – such a differentiation seems unjustified, because every group within intertestamental Judaism was Hellenised, although the extent of Hellenisation could certainly vary.94 The supporters of the old division systematised the elements of the language and style of James as Greek or Semitic. It seems, however, that it is safer to point out the linguistic and 91 92 93 94

D.G. McCartney, James, p. 34. Ibid., p. 35. See below. M. Hengel, The Hellenization of Judaea, p. 9–11.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary, style, structure

cultural bivalence of the author who drew abundantly and on various levels upon the wealth of both Greek and Semitic culture. This could be observed on the level of lexis and phraseology, but it can also be seen on the syntactic level. On the one hand, the author of James does not use typical Semitic syntax in which genitive is the equivalent of an adjective; on the contrary, he prefers to make use of adjectives, e.g. James 1:17: δόσις ἀγαθή (a good gift), δώρημα τέλειον (a perfect offering); 1:25: νόμος τέλειος (perfect law); 2:4: διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί; (evil opinions/sentences); 3:15: σοφία […] ἐπίγειος, ψυχική, δαιμονιώδης (wisdom […] earthly, sensual, devilish). On the other hand – even in the same sentences, he employs Semitic syntax (e.g. 1:25: νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίας 2:4: κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν), stylistically differentiating, in at least some cases, the importance of adjectival and genitival terms. He clearly prefers Semitic parataxis – linking sentences and word sequences with the conjunction καί – instead of hypotaxis, which would have probably been used by Greek writers. The letter abounds in parallelisms typical of Hebrew rhetoric, among which the most conspicuous is the parallelism of fragments skilfully combined with alliteration,95 paronomasia,96 anadiplosis97 and polyptoton.98 An example of a typical antithetic parallelism can be James 1:9–10: A. Καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινὸς ἐν τῷ ὕψει αὐτοῦ (let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up); B. ὁ δὲ πλούσιος ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ (and the rich in being brought low). In James 1:11, synonymous parallelism has been employed: A. τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσεν (its flower falls), B. καὶ ἡ εὐπρέπεια τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἀπώλετο (its beauty perishes), and in James 1:15 climactic parallelism can be found: A. ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν (when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin), B. ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα ἀποκύει θάνατον (and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death). In the last example, parallelism has been combined with anadiplosis: the first element of the parallelism ends and the second one begins with the same lexeme. This seems to be one of the favourite rhetorical figures of the author of James who uses it again in 1:2–3.6.15.26–27. As has already been said, alliterations are frequently applied e.g. Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, ἀδελφοί μου, ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις – James 1:2, here combined with paronomasia (πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε), which is also very often used (e.g. 1:13–14.26–27, 4:4.11–12). The author of James does not avoid rhythm and employs concluding phrases (e.g. 2:9.13.17.26), what can be viewed as a proof of good knowledge and skilful use of the elements of Hebrew poetry. 95 96 97 98

The repetition of identical sounds or their groups at the beginning of successive words or verses. A pun, a juxtaposition of similar-sounding words to emphasise their semantic similarity or contrast. Starting a sentence or a clause with the last word of the preceding sentence or clause. The repetition of the same word in different grammatical cases or juxtaposition of related words derived from the same root.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

47

48

Introduction

One of the strongest characteristics of the language of James is its imagery. We can recall here vivid descriptions of rich people “with gold-ringed person and in shining clothes” ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ, the poor “in dirty clothes” πτωχὸς ἐν ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι in James 2:2, “clothes [which] are moth-eaten” τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα γέγονεν in James 5:2, “a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind” κλύδων θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζόμενον καὶ ῥιπιζόμενον (James 1:6), “a forest […] set ablaze” ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει (James 3:5), “large ships on a rough sea” τὰ πλοῖα τηλικαῦτα […] ὑπὸ ἀνέμων σκληρῶν ἐλαυνόμενα (James 3:4), “horses with bridles in their mouths” εἰ δὲ τῶν ἵππων τοὺς χαλινοὺς εἰς τὰ στόματα βάλλομεν (James 3:3) etc. Comparisons as complex as parables stir the reader’s imagination – like in James 1:11 (“For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the field; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes” ἀνέτειλεν γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι καὶ ἐξήρανεν τὸν χόρτον, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσεν καὶ ἡ εὐπρέπεια τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἀπώλετο) or astonishing juxtapositions – like “the face of a generation seen in the mirror” τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως in James 1:23. They serve to achieve a rhetorical effect called movere – to surprise and move the recipients , and to persuade them to change their behaviour. What can be easily noticed in the imagery is the merging on different levels of Greek and Semitic elements, since it seems that behind Greek terms and phrases their Jewish understanding might be hidden. Words derived from the classical Greek language employed to reflect Semitic concepts and referring to Old Testament images have already been mentioned. And thus e.g. in James 3:7 ἐνάλιος (‘living in the sea’, ‘sea monster’) appears in the context of taming, ruling over other animals what obviously brings to mind Gen 1:28. In James 3:11, the verb βρύω (to gush) illustrates the gushing of brackish and sweet water from one spring, which might refer to Exod 15:22–25 and the change of bitter water into sweet at Marah (although James 3:12 straightens those associations and moves the accent from a biblical story to the natural conditions of Palestine). In the same way, the adjective εὐπειθής (meek/obedient), depicting wisdom which comes from God in James 3:17, implies obedience to the Divine law. In the opinion of Dan G. McCartney, Greek are the pictures of the sea, ships, horses and phrases like “no variation or shadow due to solstice” ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα in James 1:17 or ‘the cycle of generations’ τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως in James 3:6,99 which can be translated as ‘the cycle of life or the cycle of incarnations’. As in the case of hapax legomena, the context of the ‘cycle of generations’ or “no variation or shadow due to solstice” brings to mind associations with Judaism and makes the reader omit their deeper Hellenistic religious or philosophical sense. The image of ‘the cycle/circle of generations/incarnations’ alludes to Orphism and/or to

99 D.G. McCartney, James, p. 35.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary, style, structure

Platonism100 and to the idea of subsequent incarnations (reincarnations) before the soul attains perfection.101 The orphic cycle assumed ten such incarnations, and the time span between leaving one body and return to another body was one thousand years. The author of James employs the image of striving for perfection, but it is not accompanied by any deeper reflection on the millennial orphic cycles. It only concerns the control over human tongue which should not hinder man from reaching perfection, like in James 3:2. All the more that the ‘orphic’ phrase is unexpectedly juxtaposed with Jewish gehenna (3:6) and a reference to creation and the rule of man over animals (3:7). Smooth and non-confrontational fusion of elements of Greek philosophy and anthropology with images invoking Semitic ktiseology and eschatology can be clearly seen here. The image of a mirror, in turn (James 1:23–24), occurring also in Paul (1 Cor 13:12), may draw upon Greek – Platonic – associations and/or refer to universal human experience, but it is not encumbered with magical powers, a connotation frequent in pagan environment. Plato in The Republic (X 596e), by showing the distortion between the idea of the original and its unreal and ephemeral copy, rejects the delusion offered by the reflection;102 in another place he also speaks of conjuring up by a mirror of a different, immaterial, analogous and spiritual cognition. Thus, a reflection does not have to be a false perspective, it can be an indication or manifestation of hidden reality. It seems that James refers to both these ideas. A man who only listens to the word of God but does not put it into practice is similar to someone who sees in the mirror only the external form and not the essence of teaching. But even such external form has some impact and helps the man look within himself. The effect of the reflection is, however, limited and has no power to transform the person. Moving away from the mirror or, to follow James’ comparison, turning away from the audition of the word, results in the return to the previous state/life, forgetting who one really is – the beneficiary of “every generous act of giving, and every perfect gift, is from above […] so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (James 1:17–18). Also here the imagery is based on a harmonious and non-confrontational use of a motif characteristic of the Greek culture of that time. It is different with the image of God, “the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to solstice” from James 1:17. Here the author probably alludes to pagan beliefs in which the Sun and the Moon were considered to be gods who kept changing – they rose and set, could be eclipsed or cast a shadow that changed. This approach was in clear contrast to the Jewish understanding of 100 Both philosophical systems developed independently side by side. 101 Cf. D.G. McCartney, James, p. 35. 102 S. Melchior-Bonnet, Narzędzie magii. Historia luster i zwierciadeł, transl. B. Walicka, Warszawa 2007, p. 106.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

49

50

Introduction

unchangeable God, ruler over the whole creation, the creator of both the Sun and the Moon; hence a direct reference to God as “the Father of lights”. Therefore, the image assumes a polemic or confrontation with pagan beliefs.103 Alongside images derived from Hellenistic culture, there also appear images typical of Palestine and its climate, like “the early and the late rains” πρόϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον (James 5:7), “brackish water” (3:11.12) mentioned above, references to biblical figures (Abraham, Rahab, Job, Elijah) or intertextual references to Jewish sapiential tradition and to the sermon on the mount.104 The references on the level of the content are often accompanied on the generic level by references to the Greek diatribe, paraenesis or protrepsis.105 Thus, it might seem that, due to rich, poetic language, the use of rhetorical devices, images, and transgression of cultural and semantic boundaries, The Letter of James cannot be attributed to a Jew from Galilee. But we must remember that many reputable Greek writers were of Jewish descent. It is enough to mention Philodemus of Gadara – a philosopher, musician and poet (first century BC), Meleager of Gadara – a collector of epigrams and an anthologist (first century BC), Theodorus of Gadara, a rhetorician, the teacher of future emperor Tiberius (first century BC – first century AD) and Josephus himself. Justin Martyr (second century AD) in turn, who lived a bit later, came from Samaria.106 Rhetorical issues are linked to the question of the structure of the Letter of James. In spite of appearances, it is not easy to describe and present it, because it thwarts any attempts of linear arrangement and progressive development of themes or motifs.107 The endeavours at thematic arrangement of the composition of James have shown that subsequent themes appear in the staccato form, apparently detached from one another. It can be very well seen in the proposal of C.-B. Amphoux,108 quite synthetic when compared to others:

103 104 105 106 107

D.G. McCartney, James, p. 35. See below. See below. G.H. Rendal, The Epistle of St. James and Judaic Christianity, Cambridge 1927, p. 39. See the overview of different concepts concerning the structure of James in: S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 51–55. 108 C.-B. Amphoux, Systemes ancients de division de l’epitre de Jacques et composition litaire, “Biblica” 62 (1981), p. 390–400, after: H. Krabbendam, The Epistle of James. Tender Love in Tough Pursuit of Total Holiness. Commentary, vol. 1, Bonn 2006, p. 117–118.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary, style, structure

James 1:2–27 – Trials and hope 1. James 1:2–12 – Trial/experience – source of joy 2. James 1:13–27 – Response to temptation II. James 2:2–26 – In the synagogue 1. James 2:1–13 – Partiality 2. James 2:14–26 – Works as the sign of faith III. James 3:1–4:10 – Everyday life 1. James 3:1–18 – Words and wisdom 2. James 4:1–10 – Pleasures and humility IV. James 4:11–5:20 – Judgement and salvation 1. James 4:11–5:12 – The danger of judging 2. James 5:13–20 – The hope of salvation. The thematic approach does not take into consideration the repetition of motifs or tries to explain the phenomenon in a fragmentary manner. James Hardy Ropes, already counted among the classics, claims that separate thoughts expressed in the form of aphorisms have been gathered here in thematically consistent paragraphs which help to follow the development of the idea and/or show a particular issue or motif from different perspectives.109 How can we explain, however, the occurrence of the motif of the poor and the rich in fragments remote from one another (James 1:9–11.27–2:9.15–16, 5:1–6)? An attempt to tackle the problem might be atomisation of the text and meticulous description of the subject matter of units counting two or three verses. What is considered are generic determinants of individual fragments which are in turn linked to themes. Just as in the case of the thematic approach, also in the case of the generic method, it turns out that literary genres are used independently and in a staccato form.110 A good example of such fragmentation of the text is the structure of James proposed by Józef Kozyra.111 The division line is here generic affiliation and a linear approach to the text: 1. (introductory) encouragement and instructions; 2. paraenesis; 3. (further) admonition and moral instruction; 4. eschatological justification of paraenesis (here without defining the genre); 5. (final) warning and practical advice. Fragments representing distinctive genres are different both in terms of theme and in terms of volume. And thus, for instance, introductory encouragement and instructions in the first chapter (without prescript) have been thematically divided in the following way:

109 J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 2–3. 110 See below. 111 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 47–48.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

51

52

Introduction

1:2–4 – On tried and tested faith leading to perfection 1:5–8 – On prayer for wisdom in difficulties 1:9–11 – On boasting of the rich and the poor 1:12–15 – On endurance in temptation 1:16–18 – On unchangeable God as the source of perfection 1:19–21 – On self-restraint in speech and in anger 1:22–25 – On listening and doing 1:26–27 – On real piety as a way to perfection. Further warnings and moral instructions are longer and larger in terms of volume (James 3:1–5:6) but their thematic span is narrower: 3:1–12 – On responsibility for the word 3:13–18 – On wisdom that comes from God 4:1–3 – On the effects of the greed of possession 4:4–6 – On friendship with God or with the world 4:7–10 – A call for humility and conversion 4:13–17 – On the dependance of human plans on God 5:1–6 – A warning to rich oppressors. The difficulties in defining the structure of the letter often resulted in the abandonment of the intention to do it and the fact was justified by diachronic arguments or by generic affiliation – the allegedly different time of the creation of particular sequences of the letter or their belonging to different literary genres. Today, however, James is more and more often considered to be a precise, homogenous and formally organised structure,112 although this is certainly not a typical linear structure. Even if no convincing and coherent formal organisation can be found (e.g. based on noun-and-verb constructions113 or on proverbs accompanied by commentaries, or on commentaries on texts derived from the OT or Jewish literature), James is nevertheless described as a piece of writing edited as a whole and preserving both theological and thematic unity.114 The cohesion is mainly based on the observation that the issues enumerated in the first chapter are developed in various ways in the subsequent part of the letter. Several of such non-linear structural models have been described by Mark E. Taylor115 who points out that most commentators agree with the thesis concerning the unity of James, but they see it and interpret it in

112 113 114 115

So e.g. P.H. Davids, James (The New International Biblical Commentary), Peabody 1989, p. 29. D.P. Nystrom, James, Grand Rapids 1997, p. 44. P.H. Davids, James, p. 13. M.E. Taylor, Recent Scholarship, p. 85–115.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary, style, structure

different ways. Some think that James arranges his themes according to a chiastic pattern, others see James as a coherent rhetorical structure.116 And thus Peter Davids117 notices a parallel structure in the organisation of the introduction or, precisely speaking, two introductions to James: A. James 1:2–4 – Trial and faith B. James 1:5–8 – Wisdom and faith C. James 1:9–11 – Wealth and faith A’. James 1:12–15 – Temptation and sin B’. James 1:16–21 – God’s gift and wicked speech C’. James 1:22–27 – Action and sin The whole remaining part of the letter (except for the ending – James 5:7–20) is organised in reverse order which refers to the subject matter of both introductions: C. James 2:1–26 – Wealth and faith B. James 3:1–4:12 – Wisdom and speech A. James 4:13–5:6 – Temptation and wealth. The author also pays attention to the structure of the CBA parts in the body of the letter. It seems that each of them is organised according to the following scheme: 1. Thesis; 2. Presentation of the problem; 3. Theological argumentation; 4. Reference to the OT; 5. Conclusion. A rhetorical structure of James referring to classical patterns was proposed, inter alia, by Ernst Baasland:118 James 1:2–15 James 1:16–18 James 1:19–27 James 2:1–5:6 James 2:1–3:10a James 3:10b–12 James 3:13–5:6 James 5:7–20

exordium transitus propositio argumentatio confirmatio transitus confutation peroratio

116 See below. 117 P.H. Davids, James, p. 14. 118 E. Baasland, Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes, [in:] Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung II. Principat, ed. W. Haase, H. Temporini, Berlin 1988, p. 3554–3659, [in:] I. Mongstad Kvammen, Toward a Postcolonial Reading, p. 36–37.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

53

54

Introduction

The greatest value of Ernst Baasland’s study is drawing attention to transitions (transitus),119 which link separate fragments of the letter, prepare the recipient for what is to come and add coherence to the text. It is true that the transitions pinpointed by Baasland lack typical formal transition indicators; the function may, however, be assumed by apostrophes – phrases directed to the recipients: “my beloved” in 1:16 or “my brothers and sisters” repeated twice in 3:10b.12a. Still, it is difficult to say why Ernst Baasland does not recognise James 2:1 or 2:14 as transitions. Mark E. Taylor120 assigns more units to the category of transitions and considers them to be key components of the structure and interpretation of James. The list of such rudimentary elements is a bit longer. When analysing the structure of James, special attention should be paid to: – inclusions – the use of the same or similar expressions at the beginning and at the end of a particular section to underline it (e.g. James 1:2–4 and 1:12: 2:12–13 and 4:11–12, 4:6 and 5:6); Taylor recognises 2:12–13 and 4:11–12 as fragments representing the most important inclusions; – transitions – their function is assumed by proverbial expressions and phrases, isolated from their direct contexts and independent of more complex sequences (James 1:12, 1:26–27, 2:12–13, 3:13–18, 4:11–12); – issues listed at the beginning of the letter, which introduce key motifs, themes, and even words or phrases developed later (James 1:1–13); – key texts derived from the OT, which thematically and hermeneutically bond together different fragments of the letter (Lev 19 and Deut 6 in James 1:12, 2:5, 2:19, 4:12, Prov 3:34b in James 4:7–10 and Prov 3:34a in James 4:13–5:6). It would be hard not to agree with Taylor’s opinion that the complexity of the structure of James will always stir up debates;121 nevertheless, the structure proposed by him is noteworthy because it actually takes into account the formal key elements generated earlier; moreover, it refers to biblical Hebrew rhetoric and the concentric

119 Transition, Lat. transitus – passing. The term refers to different ways and techniques of passing to the subsequent part of the speech (or text). The main function of transition is highlighting respective stages of a composition, its organisation and layout, usually using appropriate linguistic indicators, e.g. Let us pass to the next point… Transition can be used at the beginning of a particular thematic unit or at its end, and then it may also serve as a short recapitulation of an important idea, which creates a bridge to the next element. Transitions help both the sender and the recipient to follow the correct train of thought and stick to the subject; in: M. Korolko, Sztuka retoryki, Warszawa 1990, p. 96. 120 M.E. Taylor, Recent Scholarship, p. 107–110. 121 M.E. Taylor, G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of James, p. 701, 705.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Vocabulary, style, structure

structure in the body of the letter (2:1–5:6), where transitions seem to be a significant module: 1. Prescript (1:1) 2. Double introduction: life based on justice and wisdom (1:2–27) 2.1. Trials (1:2–11) Transition (1:12) 2.2. Dangers resulting from self-deception (1:13–27) 3. Body of the letter: life based on the law of freedom (2:1–5:6) A. Opening of the body of the letter (2:1–11) B. Transition – speech and deeds (2:12–13) C. Wrongdoing, tongue (2:14–3:12) D. Transition – wisdom from above vs wisdom of this world (3:13–18) C’. Prophetic warnings (4:1–10) B’. Transition – obey the law, not to judge (4:11–12) A’. Closing of the body of the letter (4:13–5:6) 4. Conclusion (5:7–20). One of the most interesting descriptions of the structure of James is the proposal of Timothy B. Cargal,122 based on structural semiotics of A.J. Greimas. When analysing the structure of James, instead of searching for logical linear sequences and associations, one should focus on the examination of the development and relations of particular topics and figures on various levels – from syntax, through semiotics, to the narrative level. It turns out that in James the development and relations are subordinated to ‘reversed parallelism’. The beginning (James 1:1) and the ending (James 5:19–20) of the letter delineate the basic framework for the reversed parallelism. James 1:1 refers to the dispersion and, in a metaphorical sense – to the departure from truth; James 5:19–20 – to bringing back to truth those who have been wandering and, consequently, to the uniting of the community. Cargal sees in the reversed parallelism the main objective of the letter – uniting of the dispersed community around the system of values exposed in the letter, which can only be nurtured collectively and in a relational manner. Guided by reversed parallelism as the basic criterion of division, Cargal points out four main parts of the text: – James 1:1–21 – where dispersion from 1:1 creates reversed parallelism with 1:21 – getting rid of wickedness and acceptance of the saving word, which results in the integration of the community;

122 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 29–45.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

55

56

Introduction

– James 1:22–2:26 – where parallelism is created by putting the word into practice in 1:22 and dead faith without works in 2:26; – James 3:1–4:10 – where the desire to teach and judge, to being condescending towards others in 3:1 creates reversed parallelism with the call for humility in 4:12; – James 4:11–5:20 – where judging and condemning others in 4:11 is juxtaposed with conversion and deliverance in 5:20. As has been mentioned, in recent years, while analysing the structure of James, attention has been paid to the relation of James 1, and especially James 1:2–18, to the remaining part of the letter and for this reason this fragment is considered to be a kind of index.123 Structurally – as Douglas J. Moo maintains – each of the themes discussed by James can be associated with one of short reassurances in 1:2–18.124 Different combinations of such references can be found. One of such proposals has been provided by Ingeborg Mongstad-Kvammen who semantically and motivically analyses the whole of chapter one.125 Her proposal can be best presented in the form of a chart: James 1 Main motifs/themes James 1:2–4.12–15 Trials, experiences, test of faith, endurance James 1:5.16–18 Wisdom, prayer, God’s gifts James 1:15.18 Birth to death vs birth in God by the word of truth James 1:9–11 The rich, the poor, the humble, the proud James 1:19–20.26 Control over tongue James 1:21–25.27 Putting words into practice

Reference James 2:6–7, 5:7–11 James 3:13–18 James 2:1–13, 2:14–26, 4:7–12 James 1:27b, 2:1–17, 4:5.13–17, 5:1–6 James 3:1–12, 4:11 James 2:1–4.8–13.14–26, 3:17–18, 4:1–6.11

The model clearly shows repetition of certain themes not only in the body of the letter but even in the index itself. An exception here is the motif from James 1:5.16–18, which is developed only in James 3:13–18. Due to its singleness and central position, the fragment can be seen as crucial for the understanding of the whole letter. It is worth mentioning that also Mark E. Taylor located the transition 3:13–18 in the centre of the body of James, and, moreover, syntactically, semantically and axiologically it fits perfectly well into Timothy B. Cargal’s theory of reversed 123 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 26; L.T. Johnson, The Letter of James, p. 14. 124 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 44. 125 I. Mongstad-Kvammen, Toward a Postcolonial Reading, p. 31–38.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

parallelism. It should be added that lines from 13 to 18, and particularly line 17, not only develop the motif from James 1:5.16–18 but also organise the text of the whole letter. Feature enumerated in line 17 – purity, peacefulness, kindness, gentility, meekness, impartiality, lack of hypocrisy – are on the one hand in opposition to the conduct of the addressees of the letter, to faith without works, to conflicts and oppression; on the other hand, they represent the key values mentioned in the admonition: putting words into practice, looking after orphans and widows, absence of divisions, control over tongue, life based on the law of love, humility before God etc. One might be thus tempted to invert the above dependencies and turn 3:13–18 into an element organising the structure of James. Lines from 13 to 16 would then constitute a transition whose aim would be to draw the recipients’ attention to the qualities of true wisdom and line 18 would be the development of the motif of the “good fruits”. Wisdom σοφία from above ἄνωθεν pure ἁγνή irenic εἰρηνική gentle/willing to yield ἐπιεικής obedient (to the law) εὐπειθής full of mercy μεστὴ ἐλέους full of good fruits μεστὴ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν

impartial ἀδιάκριτος unhypocritical ἀνυπόκριτος

References James 1:5–8.16–18 James 1:12–15.21a.27 James 1:19–20, 4:1–3 James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10–11 James 1:22–25, 2:10–12 James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20 James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18 James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3 James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12

The above model does not atomise the text, what is undoubtedly its positive quality; moreover, it is based not only on the subject matter but also on James’ terminology indicating particular themes. It shows that the principal topic of the letter is wisdom seen as a gift from God, which raises faith from the level of declaration to the level of action. Focusing on wisdom makes it possible to look at James as a text representing very broadly understood sapiential literature, what is evidenced by numerous references to Old Testament texts of this kind and by the formal similarity to them.

1.5

Genre

The Letter of James undoubtedly represents sapiential literature. This is evidenced not only by the main theme of the letter – characteristics and practical application

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

57

58

Introduction

of wisdom in a community, but also formal similarity to Hellenistic and especially Jewish sapiential texts (e.g. moral aphorisms of Pseudo-Phocylides, Gnostic moral Teachings of Silvanus, The Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira, The Proverbs), which in the same way as James abound in advice, teachings, instructions, maxims and, occasionally, in prohibitions and requirements, too. Nonetheless, it has to be remembered that, contrary to slightly older Greek wisdom literature, the intertestamental Jewish sapiential texts are in majority eschatologically oriented.126 Since the eschatological element appears in James a number of times and on different levels, it seems more adequate to demonstrate the affinity of the letter with Jewish wisdom literature. Moreover, most biblical scholars think that, although James is a bivalent text, its links with Judaism are much stronger than with classical models, and that it reflects the inherent Jewish character of Christianity represented by the Letter of James and its recipients.127 In the past, Jewish sapiential literature created in the diaspora was differentiated from narrative apocalyptic literature developing within Palestinian Judaism. After the Qumran discoveries, such radical differentiation is no longer defensible because this was in the Palestinian territory where previously unknown wisdom writings, reputedly characteristic of the diaspora, were found (1Q27, 4Q184, 185, 298, 299–301, 412, 415–418, 420–421, 423, 424, 425, 525).128 One can see here the phenomenon of generic convergence between Greek and Jewish wisdom (while certainly preserving cultural antagonism in Tob, Wis or Sir).129 James might be another proof that in the Jewish environment of the first century elements typical of wisdom texts of different provenance existed side by side or even intertwined. It is clearly visible on the level of intertextual strategies and in the use of some elements of paraenesis, proleptic discourse and diatribe. Due to formal indicators James is classified as a letter. Still, it is debated among biblical scholars whether the epistolary form was primary or secondary, applied to a text which had originally been devised not as a letter but as a paraenetic speech130 or even a homily.131 The evidence of the secondary character of the epistolary form could be a comparatively small number of indicators – only the prescript and the greeting χαίρειν, typical of Greek correspondence. In comparison to other New Testament texts of primarily epistolary nature – like the letters of Paul the apostle, which begin and end with typical phrases used as epistolary patterns – this is not much, at least at first glance.

126 127 128 129 130 131

R. Bauckham, James and Jesus, [in:] The Brother of Jesus, p. 111. See e.g. F. Mussner, Jakobusbrief, p. 8; R. Bauckham, James, p. 15; D.G. McCartney, James, p. 34. R. Bauckham, James, p. 22. Cf. S. Jędrzejewski, Judaizm diaspory w okresie Drugiej Świątyni, “Seminare” 27 (2010), p. 13. See e.g. E. Baasland, Literarische Form, p. 36–54. See e.g. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 46.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

Standard Hellenistic letters in the prescript contained information about the sender and the recipients as well as brief greetings, e.g. “Mnesiergos sends greetings to his housemates and wishes them good health”,132 or “Theon to his father Theon, greeting”.133 In Jewish letters, also those written in Greek, the greetings were often replaced by the wish of peace (εἰρήνη) or another blessing, like the extensive blessing in 2 Macc 1:2–5: To their brothers, the Jews living in Egypt, from their brothers, the Jews in Jerusalem and Judaea, greetings and untroubled peace. May God prosper you, remembering his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, his faithful servants. May he give you all a heart to worship him and to do his will with a generous mind and a willing spirit. May he open your hearts to his Law and his precepts, and give you peace. May he hear your prayers and be reconciled with you, and not abandon you in time of evil.

The initial epistolary indicators are present in James. The prescript comprises the self-presentation of the author of the letter as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”, the indication of the recipients – “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” and the greetings. What is missing are the final indicators – the postscript and characteristic farewell phrases, like the ones applied by Paul: “Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit” (Phlm 23–25) or at least wishes of good health or a simple “Farewell”, usually ending Greek letters. But it seems that this fact should not disqualify James as an epistle, because letters written in both Graeco-Roman and Jewish environments could have various endings or not have an ending at all.134 For example, a Greek letter of a prodigal son to his mother, very often compared to Luke’s parable of the prodigal son, finishes with the sentence: “Do you not know that I would rather be a cripple than be conscious that I am still owing anyone an obol?”135 Conventional final phrases and greetings can rarely be found e.g. in the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and emperor Trajan136 , and didactic letters might in turn finish with a sentence like: “Unlike a mortal creature is man living in the plenitude of

132 Ateńczyk Mnezjergos do swoich domowników, transl. J. Schnayder, [in:] List antyczny. Antologia, ed. J. Schnayder, Wrocław 2006, p. 3. 133 Theon – A Boy’s Letter, transl. J. Manteuffel, https://genius.com/Theon-a-boys-letter-annotated [accessed: 02.07.2019]. 134 P. Hartin, James of Jerusalem, p. 88. 135 In: J. Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past. The Archeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion, vol. 1, Princeton, NJ 2015, p. 329. 136 See: Korespondencja Pliniusza z cesarzem Trajanem, transl. J. Schnayder, in: List antyczny, p. 26–38.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

59

60

Introduction

immortal goods”137 or “He is a great man who uses earthenware dishes as if they were silver but he is equally great who uses silver as if it were earthenware. It is the sign of an unstable mind not to be able to endure riches”.138 There is also another, more technical explanation of the lack of a typical ending in the Letter of James – the scribe who copied the text might have skipped the ending which did not add anything new to the epistle and was not necessary to identify the sender, since the one who wrote the farewell words introduced himself at the very beginning as James.139 It seems, however, that the direct inspiration for James in terms of the genre were not standard Hellenistic letters but a certain variety of literary letters known in Jewish communities, the so-called letters to the diaspora. The assumption that James represents the genre of literary letters justifies the coherence discussed above and the sophisticated structure of the text, as it is well known that such writings were edited with particular care.140 In the study of generic affiliation of James, common features with the best known letters to the diaspora should be sought out, e.g. with Jer 29 (a letter containing the record of Jeremiah’s prophecy), with deuterocanonical texts from 2 Macc 1–2 and Bar 6:1–73 (the so-called Letter of Jeremiah), or the apocryphal Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Bar) 78:1–87:1. A shorter text representative of the genre is the writing included in Acts 15:23–29, most probably reconstructed in fragments, addressed to the Christian diaspora, whose authorship is ascribed to James. Among New Testament writings, the genre is represented by 1 Pet and by the letters to the seven churches in Revelation (cf. Rev 1:4–5a). Well-known are also extrabiblical letters to the diaspora sent from Jerusalem: e.g. the letter to the Jewish colony at Elephantine island dating to the fifth century BC or the letter to the diaspora dating to the same time as James and ascribed to Gamaliel the Elder, preserved in the Talmud.141 The objective of the letters to the diaspora was first of all, as K.W. Niebhur claims, advice on how to preserve integrity and identity of the people of God in the nonJewish world and in unfavourable circumstances, also in terms of religious practice – hence the abundance of edifying elements in such texts. The unfavourable situation is, however, interpreted as temporary (e.g. as the sign of Divine punishment), and

137 Zasady etyki epikurejskiej, transl. A. Krokiewicz, in: List antyczny, p. 171. 138 Seneca, Wartość czasu, transl. J. Schnayder, in: List antyczny, p. 176; cf. Moral Letters to Lucilius, Letter 5, On the Philisopher’s Mean, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/ Letter_5 [accessed: 02.07.2019]. 139 R. Bauckham, James, p. 12. 140 List antyczny, p. XXVIII. 141 Some scholars think that the letter should be attributed to Gamaliel of Yavne, the grandson of Gamaliel the Elder, who became one of Jewish leaders after the year 70; cf. H.-J. Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis, Waco 2006, p. 259.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

consequently the intertestamental letters to the diaspora in particular are futureoriented – future in which the dispersed believers will come together; eschatology, when all difficulties will be overcome and those who persevere will be rewarded.142 The orientation can be easily noticed in James, for example in the short parables stressing the transitory nature of life, the insignificance of earthly goods and honours or the anticipation of the arrival of the Judge – James 1: 9–11, 5:7–8, in the promise of receiving “the crown of life” – James 1:12; in reminding the inverted principles of the kingdom of God, so characteristic of evangelical parables where joy is changed into sadness (James 4:9), the poor and the humble are “raised up”, the proud are “brought low” (James 1:9, 2:5, 4:6.10); in the references to judgement and mercy of God the Judge (James 2:12, 3:1, 4:12, 5:9), or in referring to the issue of salvation in general (James 1:21, 5:20). The eschatological orientation brings the letters to the diaspora close to prophetic genres like the apocalypses. The intertwining of instruction and prophetic and apocalyptic conventions can then easily be seen. An excellent example is Jer 29, a record of a prophecy, as well as the letter of Jeremiah in Bar 6 or the letter of Baruch, which constitutes a large part of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Bar). The majority of the letters to the diaspora start with a phrase similar to James’ prescript, which exposes the situation of the recipients: “Thus says Baruch the son of Neriah to the brethren carried into captivity: ‘Mercy and peace’” (2 Bar 78:2);143 “To our brothers of the diasporas of Babylonia, Media, Greece, and all other diasporas of Israel, may you have much peace” (Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin 1:2 [18d]);144 “To their brothers, the Jews living in Egypt, from their brothers, the Jews in Jerusalem and Judaea, greetings and untroubled peace” (2 Macc 1:1); “Thus says then Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon” (Jer 29:4); “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet 1:1). It seems that a reference to the dispersion or its semantic equivalents can be recognised as one of the formal indicators of the genre. As far as the final words of greeting are concerned, the variety of options or lack of any formal endings in the Jewish letters to the diaspora is similar to that in Greek epistolography. Some letters end with a typical postscript: Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter to encourage you and to testify that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. Your sister

142 K.W. Niebuhr, Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe, NTS 44 (1998), p. 420–443; P.J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem, p. 90. 143 Second Baruch, The Book of the Apocalypse of Baruch The Son of Neriah, https://www.preteristarchive. com/ChurchHistory/0075_baruch_second.html [accessed: 03.07.2019]. 144 In: R. Bauckham, James, p. 19–20.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

61

62

Introduction

church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ (1 Pet 5:12–14),

some end abruptly like James, without any particular words of farewell, e.g. the letter of Jeremiah in Jer 29 or the letter of Jeremiah in Bar 6. Others give recommendations on what to do with the letter or express conventional reassurances of remembrance, e.g. When therefore you receive this my epistle, read it in your congregations with care. And meditate thereon, above all on the days of your fasts. And bear me in mind by means of this epistle, as I also bear you in mind in it, and always fare ye well (2 Bar 86:1–3),

still others finish with the date when the letter was written: “in the year one hundred and eighty-eight” (2 Macc 1:9b). An important feature of the letters to the diaspora is the range of their influence. Their impact was in principle much wider than that of the letters addressed to particular people or communities. James, as the letter to the diaspora, could have freely circulated among different communities, because its content was universal and could be applied to any Jewish Christian group of the time.145 Stressing the circular character of James, Richard Bauckham does not hesitate to call it an encyclical.146 James as a circular letter to the diaspora, sophisticated in terms of literary composition, is thus an official text addressed to everyone who belongs to the diaspora understood very broadly, even metaphorically. This is true that some fragments of James – for instance references to trials, which might suggest both external and internal persecution (James 2:4–7 and 5:4–6), the remarks about neglecting those in need (James 1:27, 2:15–16), about unequal treatment of the rich and the poor (James 2:1–9), about quarrels, arguments or envy (James 3:13–14, 4:1–2, 5:9), or even about withholding wages for the work done (James 5:1–6) – are sometimes interpreted as allusions referring to very specific situations. But it seems that the very evocative meticulousness in the presentation of reality should rather be seen as a rhetorical device inherent to the genre, the manner in which popular sapiential toposes have been employed or simply the style of the author of James. This could be observed in particular when James is compared to other examples of

145 Ibid, p. 21. 146 An encyclical – from Gr. ἐνκυκλικός (circular) – is understood here as a letter of a religious leader addressed to the faithful and concerning faith and morality or important social questions; cf. M. Głowiński, T. Kostkiewiczowa, A. Okopień-Sławińska, et al., Podręczny słownik terminów literackich, Warszawa 1994, p. 60.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

wisdom literature – e.g. to The Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus or The Proverbs, which also discuss the issues of wealth and poverty, exploitation, or irresponsible use of insulting or false language.147 The same refers to apostrophes “my beloved” or “my brothers”, which are supposed to be the proof of the writer’s personal attitude to the addressees.148 As has already been shown, these are rhetorical devices which usually indicate transition, serve as elements whose aim is to draw the attention of the recipients and arrange the content. It must be remembered that James as a circular letter to the diaspora was read out in congregations and the listeners had to absorb its main ideas in an auditory way. A tool which might help to show the multilateral associations of James with the Jewish sapiential traditions of the time and to assess the patterns shaped by those traditions is the application of various intertextual strategies. Among intertextual phenomena we can find on the one hand such borrowings which can be attributed to a ‘source utterance’, that is empirical quotes and their derivatives (cryptocitations and paraphrases), and on the other hand those which cannot be embedded in any particular text – e.g. motifs, idioms, parodies of styles etc.149 The intertextual approach is most legibly revealed in the use of the examples of Old Testament characters and the so-called empirical quotes. The figures of Abraham (James 2:21–24) and Rahab (James 2:25) are mentioned to illustrate faith followed by concrete deeds. Job exemplifies endurance in suffering, rewarded by God’s mercy (James 5:11). The example of Elijah praying successfully for drought, and then for rain, illustrates the need of ardent prayer (James 5:17–18). Among these examples, one is exceptional because it is accompanied by an empirical quote from the Scripture, revealing an act of quoting, introduced with the words: “Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’” (James 2:23, cf. Gen 15:6). It was, however, slightly shortened in comparison to the LXX. The commandment to love one’s neighbour is quoted in a similar way – with the use of an introductory phrase: “You do well if you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself ’” (James 2:8, cf. Lev 19:18). Citation of other commandments is accompanied by references to God as the giver of the Law, where the direct mention of God is replaced with a circumlocution: “For the one who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’, also said, ‘You shall not murder’” (James 2:11, cf. Exod 20:13–14, Deut 5:17–18). The order of commandments is here different than in both Old Testament decalogues. A direct reference to the Law can also be found in James 2:9 where Lev 19:15 is summarised, and not

147 See below. 148 D.G. McCartney, James, p. 39–40. 149 Terminology after: W. Bolewski, Teksty i pre-teksty, Warszawa 1998, p. 19.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

63

64

Introduction

quoted: “But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors”. A typical introductory phrase can be found in James 4:5.6: Or do you suppose that it is for nothing that the scripture says, “God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? But he gives all the more grace; therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble”.

The very general reference to the Scripture and inaccuracy of the citation make the identification of the first quote quite difficult. The second one, much more precise, comes from Prov 3:34. It can be easily noticed that the quotations are mainly derived from the Torah which was considered to be the core of the Scripture. Among the wisdom books, only the Book of Proverbs was incorporated into the Scripture; other, younger sapiential books to which James referred, do not have the status, although they were undoubtedly regarded as important and valuable texts in various Jewish communities. References to other sapiential writings appear in James as cryptocitations (without a typical introduction and without any – even the most general – reference to the source), allusions150 and reminiscences.151 Lack of clear references to the source, inaccuracy of citation, paraphrasing, the use of ellipsis, etc., make it difficult to assess to what extent those are references to particular literary works, and to what extent the author draws upon toposes, sayings, phrases, or idioms preserved in collective consciousness, which could have been derived from literature but were recontextualised or even decontextualised and started existing on their own, independently of the source. The same problem occurs when the relations between James, 1 Clem. and The Shepherd by Hermas are analysed.152 As the analysis of the structure has shown, the whole text of James is organised around the description of wisdom that comes from above, so the demonstration of intertextual references, particularly on the motivic level, should be started with deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom, created probably in the first century BC. The

150 Allusion is understood here as a conscious reference to another text, and resorting to the cleverness of the recipient who should notice and understand its meaning. An allusion can be a reference to various elements of another work – its title, style, phraseology, or structure. Cf. Podręczny słownik, p. 13. 151 Reminiscence is understood here as a visible impact of another work, a similarity which can be noticed on the level of composition, style, phraseology, or imagery. Contrary to allusion, it is often applied unconsciously by the author and results from the influence of works highly valued and considered as models; see: Podręczny słownik, p. 210. 152 See above.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

basic difference between James and Wis, and, similarly, between James and Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Proverbs, lies in the fact that James does not personify wisdom and is not interested in its presence or function in the act of creation or in the history of Israel but describes its symptoms in interpersonal relations, in communities which try to preserve their identity. The Book of Wisdom Wis 1:2, 6:7

Wis 1:3–6, 6:23 Wis 2:4–5, 5:8 Wis 2:4–5.7–8, 4:4, 5:9.10.14 Wis 2:10–11.19 Wis 2:12–18, 5:15–16a, 6:6 Wis 3:1–5 Wis 3:6–9 Wis 3:10–11 Wis 1:1, 6:12–13 Wis 6:17–18.23 Wis 6:19–21.24a Wis 7:22–27 Wis 7:18–20

Themes/motifs God’s response to the prayers of those who trust him Wisdom vs deceitfulness and slander Transitory nature of life The picture of life

The Letter of James James 1:5b

Conduct towards widows, orphans and the poor An upright man facing God and godless people Apparent suffering of the upright The aim of trials Real wretchedness and punishment of the godless Desire and quest for wisdom/justice Wisdom and love Wisdom and life/salvation Features of wisdom Functioning of the world

James 1:27b, 2:3–6.9.15–17 James 1:27a.c., 5:6

James 3:14–15 James 4:14a James 1:6.10–11, 4:14b

James 2:5, 4:6b.9.10 James 1:4.12, 5:11 James 4:16–17, 5:1–5 James 1:5a.6a James 2:8, 3:13 James 1:12.21b.25, 2:14 James 3:17–18 James 1:17, 3:6–7

As can be seen, allusions and reminiscences are revealed on several levels. Apart from common motifs like the desire and quest for wisdom, frequently identified with justice in Wis, a very characteristic feature of both texts is reflection upon the vanity and transitory nature of life. There are vivid comparisons of life to grass or flowers, to green branches which wither quickly (James 1:10–11 cf. Wis 2:7–8, 5:9); to shadow, mist and cloud (James 4:14b and Wis 2:4–5); elliptically to a turbulent wave (James 1:6 cf. Wis 5:10). The last image, developed in a Greek manner, served in the Book of Wisdom to illustrate human life as a ship tossed by the sea. In James it has a double meaning: reduced to the picture of a wave tossed by the sea – it illustrates the conduct of a doubt-ridden, unstable person, but extended to the

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

65

66

Introduction

image of a ship in the rough sea controlled with a small rudder – it serves to depict the control over tongue (James 3:4–5a).153 The structures of James and the Book of Wisdom seem to be very similar. In Wis the direct description of wisdom is not situated at the beginning of the text but it can be found in chapter 6, in 7:22–30 and in chapter 8, where wisdom is personified and presented as Solomon’s partner. Earlier – in Wis 1–5 – there are sparse references to its symptoms and some juxtaposed descriptions of the conduct of the upright (it may be assumed that this refers to the wise as well) and the godless (those devoid of wisdom); further – in Wis 10–19 – we can learn about the influence of wisdom on the history of the chosen people, from the creation of man until the passage through the Red Sea. Associations of James with another comparatively late wisdom book (second century BC) – the Wisdom of Ben Sira, called also Ecclesiasticus in the Greek translation – can be mainly seen in warnings against lack of control over the tongue. But other motifs are also present in both texts; the most interesting are the ones referring to the source of wisdom and its relationship with the fear of the Lord and the Law: Ben Sirah Sir 1:1.9.14, 4:14, 6:37, 15:18, 19:20a, 24:3, 39:6 Sir 1:14.16.18.20.28.30, 2:7–10.16–17, 15:1 Sir 1:26, 2:15, 19:20b, 21:11, 24:23–29, 39:1–2 Sir 2:1–5, 33:1 Sir 2:6 Sir 2:18, 3:30–31, 5:5–6, 16:11–12.14 Sir 3:18.24.28–29, 7:11, 10:7a.13, 11:1, 15:8

Themes/motifs Wisdom coming from God Wisdom and fear of the Lord Wisdom and commandments Being ready for trials, their aim Faithfulness to God and hope Mercy

The Letter of James James 1:5, 3:15.17

Humility and pride

James 3:1–2a.14.16, 4:2.6–10.16

James 1:12–13.19–21 James 1:22.25, 2:8.10–14.18, 3:13 James 1:2–4.14 James 1:6, 5:13–15 James 2:12–13, 5:11

153 This typically Greek comparison of human life to a ship in the sea can also be found in Sir 33:2b.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

Ben Sirah Sir 4:1–5.8–10.27.31, 7:2.10.32–35, 9:14a, 10:23a, 11:2b, 21:5, 29:9, 34:21–22 Sir 4:29, 5:9.13–14, 7:12–13, 11:7, 19:6–12, 20:5–7.18.24.26, 22:27, 23:7–8.12–13.15, 27:4–5.15, 37:16–18 Sir 5:1–3.8, 11:4.18–19, 26:25, 27:1, 29:10, 31:1.5–6 Sir 6:19 Sir 23:9–11, 26:14a Sir 15:11–12.20, 34:13–17 Sir 33:8–9, 43:5–10

Sir 35:12–24

Themes/motifs Conduct towards the poor, the needy

The Letter of James James 1:27b, 2:3–6.9.15–17

Unbridled tongue

James 1:26, 3:2b–12.14, 4:11

Attitude to wealth

James 1:10, 2:2–3, 5:1–5

Fruitful wisdom Prohibition against swearing Faithfulness to God Creation of celestial bodies that set the time Judgement within the remit of God the Judge

James 3:17, 5:6–7 James 4:12 James 1:17b–18, 4:8 James 1:17

James 2:13, 4:12, 5:8–9

One text in particular is noteworthy – it can be regarded as a certain formal model for all sapiential writings of paraenetic nature; namely, a model based on juxtaposition of oppositions, applied both by James and by Ben Sirah. Both frequently contrast the rich and the poor, the wise and the silly, the upright and the godless, Divine wisdom and devilish wisdom, etc., and they use typical antithetical parallelisms, although utterances composed of more complex phrases can also be found (e.g. James 1:9–10a.19–20.22–25, 2:2.8–9.12–13, 3:9.14–18, 4:4.7.10, Sir 1:25, 3:9.11.26–29, 4:21, 6:8–10, 10:31, 12:4.5a, 13:22–23, 32:15.17–18, 33:2.12, 34:9–10, 37:4). Sir 33:14–15 and 42:24–25 justifies this method by referring to the ‘doubleness’ of God’s creation, ‘double’ structure of the world and the pursuit of fullness: Opposite evil stands good, opposite death, life; so too opposite the devout stands the sinner. Contemplate all the works of the Most High, you will find they go in pairs, by opposites. […] All things go in pairs, by opposites, he has not made anything imperfect (cf. Sir 11:14).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

67

68

Introduction

The reflection of such order that comes from God in teaching would also be an indirect form of the quest for God’s wisdom and an attempt to mirror a pattern which leads to perfection, to fullness. Among the texts referred to by the author of James, we cannot omit the Book of Proverbs, older than the texts already discussed. As in the case of Ben Sirah, the primacy among the references is given to the descriptions of sins committed with the tongue. Nevertheless, there are fragments discussing in a similar way wisdom and conduct towards the needy: The Book of Proverbs Prov 1:7.29–30.33, 2:1.5, 3:7, 8:13, 9:10 Prov 2:6, 8:22–23

Themes/motifs Wisdom and the fear of God Wisdom coming from God Wisdom bringing peace and life Unbridled tongue

The Letter of James James 1:12–13.19–21 James 1:5, 3:15.17

Prov 3:17–18.22, 4:12, James 1:12.21b.25, 2:14, 14:26–27, 19:23 3:18 Prov 4:24, 6:12.17–19, James 1:26, 3:2b–12.14, 10:11–12.18–19.31–32, 4:11 11:9a, 13a, 12:6a.13a.17b–18a.22a, 13:3a.10, 14:3a, 15:1.4b.18, 16:27–28, 17:4.19a.20b, 18:6.20–21, 19:28, 26:28 Prov 10:3, 11:2b, 22:23, God’s care for the poor James 2:5, 4:6 29:23 and the humble Prov 11:21, 12:2 Inevitability of judgement, James 2:12–13, 3:2, punishment and reward 4:11–12, 5:8–9.11 Prov 14:21.31, 22:9.22, Conduct towards the James 1:27b, 2:3–6.9.15–17 25:21, 28:27, 29:7 poor and the needy Prov 27:1 Future depending on God James 4:13–15 Prov 28:5.7.9 Wisdom and James 1:22.25, commandments 2:8.10–14.18, 3:13 Relations between wisdom and commandments as well as questions concerning the source and the fruit of wisdom are strongly accentuated in the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch which shares many elements with James and uses very similar phrases when it ironically refers to those who put their trust in wealth or shows God as the creator of the world:

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

The Book of Baruch Themes/motifs Bar 2:14.18.30b, 3:8, 4:25 Patient endurance of trials and persecution Bar 2:18.32, 3:6–7 Praising God in persecution Bar 3:13.32.37 Wisdom coming from God Bar 3:14 The fruit of wisdom Bar 3:14, 4:1 Wisdom bringing life Bar 3:17 Bar 3:32b Bar 3:33

The Letter of James James 1:2–4.14 James 5:10–11 James 1:5, 3:15.17

James 3:17–18 James 1:12.21b.25, 2:14, 3:18 Putting trust in wealth James 5:2–3 God creator of the world James 3:7a God creator of light and James 1:17 time

In the four juxtapositions, it is worth noting the relations between wisdom and the Torah, typical of sapiential literature. Bar 3:9–12 identifies wisdom with the commandments (the Law): if Israel had obeyed the commandments, it would not have gone into captivity: “Why, Israel, why are you in the country of your enemies […]? It is because you have forsaken the fountain of wisdom”. Sir 1:26 locates the source of wisdom in the Divine Law: “If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments, and the Lord will bestow it on you” (cf. the motif of Wisdom and commandments). The idea can already be found in the Book of Proverbs, where it is expressed in a well-known Old Testament maxim: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” Prov 9:10 (cf. the motif of Wisdom and the fear of God). Such statements also appear in Job 28:28 or Ps 111[110]:10, but they do not have an eschatological character yet, as it was acquired in intertestamental times. It is also present in James.154 Since wisdom understood as obedience to the Law does not always bring positive effects in the shape of success in earthly life – on the contrary, it frequently leads to suffering and persecution – it means that the aim of the obedience should not be sought out in this existence but in deliverance from judgement and reward received in the life to come – see James 1:12. In other words – the motivation to follow in life wisdom understood as obedience to the Law is of eschatological nature. Eschatological features and a similar attitude to the Law can be found in the Letter of Baruch from 2 Bar. The author clearly states that suffering resulting from life in dispersion and persecution are “for your good, that you may not finally be condemned and they lead to receiving eternal hope” (2 Bar 78:6). Dispersion in turn

154 D.G. McCartney, James, p. 49–50.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

69

70

Introduction

is the consequence of the rejection of the Law (cf. Bar 2:1–10.12.29–30, 3:8, 4:6–7), to which, however, one can always return. The return to the Law and obedience to it as well as perseverance in suffering and in prayer guarantee mercy in judgement: And at all times make request perseveringly and pray diligently with your whole heart that the Mighty One may be reconciled to you […] For if He judge us not according to the multitude of His mercies, woe unto all us who are born (2 Bar 84:10.11 – cf. James 2:10–12, 5:16).

Referring to the Law, one cannot omit – apart from the direct quotes in James 2:8.9 – the explicit allusions to the Book of Leviticus:155 The Book of Leviticus Lev 19:10 Lev 19:12 Lev 19:13 Lev 19:15

Lev 19:16

Commandment An order to care for the poor An order not to swear falsely An order not to oppress or exploit An order not to pass partial judgements and to judge with justice An order not to slander

The Letter of James James 2:5.15–16 James 5:12 James 5:1–6 James 2:1–4.6–9

James 4:11

Adaptation of the teaching represented by Lev on the one hand brings the message of James close to the message of Jesus in the sermon on the mount;156 on the other hand, it has to be remembered that the verdict of the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:19–20), attributed mainly to James, refers to the rules described in Lev 17–18. James does not, of course, quote the sermon on the mount in the form known from Matt 5–7, or the sermon on a level place in the form known from Luke 6. He never cites or refers to the teaching of Jesus and he mentions him only twice and only in the context of his elevation, not in the context of his earthly existence. Even though the lexical and phraseological similarity of James and the sermon on the mount/a level place is striking, it is not possible to state clearly whether these are allusions or reminiscences. If we assume that these are allusions, it is difficult to say whether James knew Matthew’s version of the teaching of Jesus or if he drew information from the same source which was used by Matthew and probably also

155 Cf. ibid., p. 44. 156 R. Bauckham James, p. 74–83.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

by Luke (the Q source), or whether this was James’ authorial reconstruction of the teaching of Jesus inspired by the manner of adapting and reinterpreting the Law in sapiential literature of the Second Temple period, common in the first century, which linked obedience to the Torah to wisdom and eschatology.157 In light of the last proposal, both James and Jesus can be regarded as Jewish teachers of wisdom.158 The most explicit parallels between James and the teaching of Jesus known from Matt and Luke can be presented as follows:159 Teaching of Jesus Matt 5:11–12 (Luke 6:22–23) Matt 5:48 Matt 7:7 (Luke 11:9) Matt 7:11 (Luke 11:13) Matt 7:24 (Luke 6:47)

Matt 7:26 (Luke 6:49)

Matt 5:3 (Luke 6:20)

Matt 5:17–19 Matt 5:21–30

Matt 5:7 Matt 25:35–36

Theme/motif Joy in persecution Call for perfection Perseverance in prayer Excellence of Father’s gifts Hearing God’s words and acting on them Hearing God’s words and not acting on them The poor in spirit inherit the kingdom of heaven Necessity to obey the whole Law An order not to murder and not to commit adultery The merciful Feeding the hungry and dressing the naked

The Letter of James James 1:2 James 1:4 James 1:5.6a; 4:2–3 James 1:17 James 1:22

James 1:23

James 2:5–7

James 2:10 James 2:11

James 2:13 James 2:15–16

157 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 3. 158 R. Bauckham, James, p. 22. 159 Cf. H. Langkammer, Jezus Chrystus w świetle późniejszych pism Nowego Testamentu, Wrocław 2009, p. 88–89; P.J. Hartin, James and the Q, p. 141–142.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

71

72

Introduction

Teaching of Jesus Matt 7:16b Matt 5:9 Matt 6:24 Matt 5:8 Luke 6:25b Matt 23:12 Matt 6:34 Luke 6:24 Matt 6:19–20 Matt 5:22 (7:1–2) Matt 24:33 Matt 5:12b (Luke 6:23b) Matt 5:33–37 Matt 18:15

Theme/motif Knowing by the fruits The peacemakers Impossibility of serving two masters Purity of heart Joy turned into mourning Humility and exaltation Lack of concern about the future Warning for the rich Destruction of material wealth The order not to judge Arrival of the judge Joy in persecution The order not to swear160 Attitude to sinners

The Letter of James James 3:12 James 3:18 James 4:4 James 4:8 James 4:9 James 4:10 James 4:13–15 James 5:1 James 5:2 James 4:11, 5:9a James 5:9 James 5:10 James 5:12 James 5:19–20

The convergence between James and the teaching of Jesus in Matt is usually attributed to the use of the same source and to the same Jewish descent of both teachers but also to the fact that it was addressed to the same audience – mainly Jewish Christians. The differences can be explained in various ways, depending on the accepted dating of James: if we assume that the letter was written early (before 49), then we also have to assume that the texts parallel to Matt had been created before the written Greek version of Jesus’ logia emerged. Oral transmission, despite using numerous mnemonic techniques characteristic of oral culture, always entails the risk of distortion, for instance contextual. If we assume, however, that the letter was created later and the author of James knew the Q source and/or other written sources containing Jesus’ logia, or even Matthew’s gospel itself, then certain differences might be the result of the use of the technique of paraphrasing. 160 D.G. McCartney, James, p. 47, draws attention to a detail which might be the evidence of closer than it might seem at first glance associations between James and Matt, namely, the very radical order not to swear, characteristic of both texts. It seems that the then Jewish literature, adapting sapiential elements, warned against swearing but did not prohibit it (cf. 2 Cor 1:17).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

Apart from reaching for the same motifs and phrases, the author of James, similarly to Jesus, frequently utilises the forms of teaching typical of sapiential genres: instructive speeches (James 2:10 and 4:4); parables (James 1:23); blessings (James 1:12), warnings/threats (James 5:1–6)161 and diatribes, extremely popular at the time. Diatribe is defined as a dialogue on philosophical or moral topics, employing elements of an anecdote, characterised by conversational simplicity but simultaneously full of sophisticated rhetorical devices.162 As Duane F. Watson points out, elements typical of diatribe can be noticed particularly in James 2:163 – a dialogue with an unreal, imaginary opponent – James 2:18–23, 4:13, 5:1; – repetition of the interlocutor’s false statements – James 2:18–19, 4:13; – a series of questions and answers – James 2:20–23, 4:1, 5:13–14; – preparing the recipients for the rejection of false statements – James 2:20; – vivid/narrative presentation of flaws – James 2:2–4.15–16; – blunt interjections addressed to imaginary interlocutors, participants of the argument – James 2:20, 4:4; – maxims, quotations – James 2:8.10.11.23; – irony and sarcasm – James 2:18–20; – personification164 – or here rather animalisation165 of concepts – James 2:17.26. James Hardy Ropes166 enumerates typical diatribal expressions and phrases scattered throughout James, such as μὴ πλανᾶσθε (do not be deceived) – 1:16; θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι (you want to be shown) – 2:20; βλέπεις ὅτι (you see that) – 2:22; ὁρᾶτε ὅτι (you see that) – 2:24; Ἴστε (know) – 1:19; τί τὸ ὄφελος (what good is it) – 2:14.16; οὐ χρή (this ought not to be so) introducing a conclusion – 3:10; διὸ λέγει (therefore it says) with the quote 4:6; ἰδού (so) – 3:4.5, 5:4.7.9.11. It is characteristic that these expressions are most frequently followed by apostrophes: “my beloved”/“my brother”, which – as has already been mentioned – should be seen as a generic (and rhetorical) element, or even indicator, and not as the expression of intimacy and emotional attachment of the sender. Utterances directed at merchants or the rich (4:13–5:6) also fit into the convention of a diatribe because their addressees are imaginary interlocutors, participants of an argument, who represent values

161 162 163 164

Cf. R. Bauckham, James, p. 56. Podręczny słownik, p. 46. D.F. Watson, James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Speech of Argumentation, NTS 39 (1993), p. 119. Presentation of things, elements of the natural world, animals, plants and in particular abstract notions as people who speak and act; cf. Podręczny słownik, p. 172. 165 Attributing to things or to abstract notions (in the case of James this is first of all faith) or to the elements of the natural world qualities typical of living creatures; see: Podręczny słownik, p. 17. 166 J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 13.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

73

74

Introduction

different from the ones promoted by the author of James. This means they do not belong to the group of real recipients of the letter. Other diatribal elements are imperatives, often used ironically like most probably in James 5:1, rhetorical questions mentioned above (James 2:4.5.14–16, 3:11, 4:4); animalisations sometimes mistaken for personifications (James 1:15, 2:17, 4:1b),167 although they are less elaborated than in classical texts where animalisation, anthropomorphism, and personification were important ornamental elements. Some comparisons might seem to be quite conventional – they can be found in the texts of Greek writers, like, for instance, the already mentioned rudders, ships, bridles, or the wood on fire in James 3:3–6. As in the case of a classical diatribe, many comparisons are derived from the observation of nature, some other from human life and experience – see James 1:26, 2:15, 5:7. Examples of well-known figures – like Abraham, Rahab, Job or Elijah – were a method frequently used by Greek teachers. Since the twenties of the twentieth century, when the commentary of Martin Dibelius168 was published, James began to be looked at as a text generically dominated by paraenesis, defined as a genre within the scope of didactic literature and represented by edifying works which shape the patterns of behaviour,169 usually linked to taking on certain social roles (e.g. that of a ruler, landlord, or farmer). This definition is actually reflected in James. The text promotes the model of behaviour that helps the members of the diaspora to preserve the identity of ‘God’s friends’ on the one hand and their distinctiveness in the surrounding world on the other hand.170 Undoubtedly another feature of paraenesis, indicated by Martin Dibelius, is also present here – the universal nature of advice, instruction, or moral exhortation addressed not to individual recipients but to general, unspecified audience, defined in James as the “diaspora”.171 But in the light of what has been said earlier about the organised and coherent, though not linear, structure of James, it is difficult to assume that the teaching, instructions, orders, prohibitions, warnings, reprimands, apothegms, aphorisms, and maxims are a collection of loosely connected elements, unsystematised in any thematic, logical or compositional way, so characteristic of paraenesis. Sometimes the grammatical form (imperativus) or similar vocabulary

167 The ancient theory of tropes did not know the distinction, it employed the notion of prosopopoeia which meant introducing into the text imaginary utterances of figures who certainly would not have taken a stance on a particular issue – e.g. the dead, deities, abstractions or natural phenomena shown as people; as a rhetorical figure, prosopopoeia strengthened the argumentation of the speaker, who created the figures of his supporters and opponents; see: Podręczny słownik, p. 200. 168 M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, Göttingen 1921. 169 Podręczny słownik, p. 167. 170 P.J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem, p. 91. 171 A.J. Batten, What are they saying about the Letter of James, New York 2009, p. 5–6.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Genre

was pointed out as the only cohesive factor. Another argument in support of classifying James as paraenesis was also the assumption that the genre was commonly used in sapiential literature of the intertestamental period and also – what is less obvious – in narrative texts, which is e.g. evidenced by the presence of paraenetic elements in the deuterocanonical Book of Tobit 4:5–19 and 12:6–10.172 The aim of paraenetic literature was to persuade the recipients, with the use of advice, prohibitions and orders, to take up or give up certain activities. With time it was, however, more and more often suggested that the objective of James was different, that it aimed at eschatologically motivated moral development and a quest for wisdom, what generically brings it closer to a protreptic173 which usually assumed the form of a speech or a dialogue.174 As typical protreptic elements, John Glenn Gammie enumerates some elements of a dialogue and adhortation present in the diatribe in James 2 as well as the incentives based on negative and positive examples in James 3:1–12, 4:13–17, 5:1–6.13–18.175 Ernst Baasland also recognises James as a protreptic, or a speech of protreptic and sapiential nature written down in the form of a letter. The oration probably had a double purpose – firstly, as teaching addressed to the disciples, hence the elements of a diatribe, and secondly as teaching addressed to a (liturgical) congregation. Since the oration was designed for a community which consisted mainly of people with Hellenistic education, James was given a good classical rhetorical shape.176 Douglas J. Moo is of the same opinion and – as has already been said – he considers James to be a kind of written homily. The author, physically remote from his recipients, could not deliver a long and exhausting speech and encourage his audience in person, so he passed on his homily in writing, giving it the shape of a letter.177 Summing up the above juxtapositions, it can be concluded that James is a multigeneric text. The dominating genre would be sapiential literature reflected in James in the choice of the subject matter and in the use of the same characteristic toposes and motifs, also present in wisdom writings, as well as eschatologically oriented reinterpretation of the Torah and the use of a binary, contrastive form of the transmission of the most relevant content. The protreptic and paraenetic elements present in the text, combined with the form of the diatribe, are subordinated to the sapiential character of the letter. The structure of James turns out to be not only organised and coherent but also similar to the structure of the Book of Wisdom. It may mean that

172 D.G. McCartney, James, p. 48. 173 J.G. Gammie, Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre, “Semeia” 50 (1990), p. 41–77; cf. J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 18. 174 Podręczny słownik, p. 199. 175 J.G. Gammie, Paraenetic Literature, p. 51. 176 E. Baasland, Literarische Form, p. 36–54. 177 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 46.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

75

76

Introduction

in sapiential literature thematic indexation was included not at the beginning but in the middle of the text and that the preceding and subsequent content was organised around the index. This organisation takes the form of the letter to the diaspora, popular in the intertestamental times. It is difficult to decide whether the form is primary or secondary because the epistolary indicators do not have much influence on the body of the letter. It seems, however, that as a literary text, James from the very start was designed as a letter to the diaspora, a circular document, a kind of encyclical read out in the communities belonging to or considering themselves as the diaspora.

1.6

Sender and addressees

Much space has been devoted above to the reconstruction of the biography of James the Just, who is traditionally regarded as the author of the Letter of James. Attention has been paid to those fragments of the text which could confirm the biographical data. But the analysis of vocabulary, style and structure of James has cast doubt on the belief that James, a Jew from Galilee, the relative of Jesus and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem could be the same person who actually wrote the letter or, in other words, was the subject of the creative process – a person fluent in Greek, very well acquainted with Jewish and Hellenistic literature, creating a text sophisticated in terms of composition and diversified in terms of literary genres, which in addition used one of the literary conventions of the time – a letter to the diaspora. Within the framework of this convention, the sender of the letter introduces himself as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”, who writes to brothers living in “the Dispersion”. Can the sender who makes himself known in this way be identified with James the Just as a real person or is it only a literary creation? The questions summarised here provide an impulse to reach in further analysis for a model commonly applied in literary theory, which describes different communication levels and relations between the sender and the recipients. James the Just should thus be identified as an external author (A1), a figure remaining outside the literary utterance. This is a real, historical person with a certain biography, which sometimes needs to be reconstructed, and equipped with specific traits of character. But neither the biography nor the personality have to, although they may, be connected to the analysed text.178 In the case of James, personal and biographical data, regardless if they are true or false, are relevant because they have become a so-called social fact – in other words they have been so closely linked in

178 H. Markiewicz, Autor i narrator, in: H. Markiewicz, Wymiary dzieła literackiego, Kraków 1996, p. 89.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

collective consciousness to the name of the person introducing themselves in the prescript that they ‘participate as the perceptive background for his utterance’,179 though in fact biographical data and the self-presentation of the person speaking in James 1:1 remain on different communication levels. The external author, who was a real living person, has to be differentiated from the author revealing himself in the utterance (or revealed through the interpretative activity of the recipient), and who can be called an implied author (A2). He can be treated functionally – as the object of the creative process180 and this is the way in which the implied author of James has been presented – through the use of vocabulary, style, structure and the choice of the literary convention. His methods and literary strategies may confirm the assumption that this is James the Just, or may undermine it – hence the doubts which have nevertheless been dispelled in favour of his identity by pointing out that in the history of literature and philosophy there were figures of Jewish or Samaritan descent famous for their writing skills. Some scholars identify the implied author with the person acting in the text, the narrator,181 others maintain that they are cannot be equated.182 Still others try to resolve the problem of relations and dependencies in a consensual way: Franz Karl Stanzel claims that the narrator183 is to a certain extent an independent character, created by the implied author, who can be interpreted as a separate personality. It is only when such an interpretative attempt fails that the narrator and the author can be equated.184 In the case of official ancient literary letters, and consequently also in the case of the letter to the diaspora, those two instances of the sender – the implied author and the narrator – should be separated. The separation results in the creation of the third level of communication on which the narrator, the sender of the letter (A3), is revealed. The sender introduces himself as James and he is the subject speaking in the letter. As the narrator, James instructs, encourages, warns, introduces other characters, events, descriptions, motifs which all create a fictional portrayed world. Each instance of a sender has its equivalent in the shape of a receiver on the appropriate communication level. The external author (A1) is correlated with a real, specified receiver (R1), the one who reads or listens to the letter and gives it a definite shape by applying to it the meaning he has in mind, the senses resulting from the

179 180 181 182

Ibid., p. 90. Ibid. Ibid., p. 92–94. A. Okopień-Sławińska, Relacje osobowe w literackiej komunikacji, in: Problemy socjologii literatury, ed. J. Sławiński, Wrocław 1971, p. 118. 183 F. Stanzel refers to the auctorial narrator, one who is not a character in the story. 184 F. Stanzel, Theorie des Erzählens, Göttingen 1967, p. 27–28.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

77

78

Introduction

receiver’s situation and his or her cultural context.185 In the case of a historical text or a letter, we can distinguish the original recipients to whom the letter was actually sent (R1a) and every subsequent addressee coming into contact with the text of James at any point in time and at any place. Similarly, to the reconstruction of the bibliographical data of the external author, also the description of the first, historical addressees as (most probably) a Messianic congregation and of their receptive competence takes place outside the text (extratextual level – L1). Due to cultural and temporal proximity, the original recipients could correctly understand the intentions of the author (this time the internal author) of the text. The awareness of the literary convention, of the tradition from which the letter stems, historical and cultural circumstances in which it was created all help the real recipient, also the one reading the letter two thousand years after it was written, to better decode it and understand it in the way close to the intention of the sender/the internal author. The text can certainly be read by a particular addressee without the awareness of all those elements but the message and interpretation will then be different from the one intended by the sender. In other words, in such a situation the code of the sender cannot be equated with the code of the receiver,186 and the text acquires a new meaning, sometimes quite surprising, and certainly different from the one assumed by the implied author. On the second level (L2), that is on the level of communication inherent to a literary text (intratextual), the relations are more complicated. There is of course the basic rule which assumes that any act of sending a message always preconceives the way in which it will be received.187 But the reception of the message by the addressees (R2), envisaged by the implied author (A2), is just a potentiality. The reconstruction of the intentions of the implied author is in most cases impossible, in the same way as it is impossible to reconstruct the reception competence of the implied addressees (the correct manner and style of decoding the conventions, allusions, reminiscences and other intertextual phenomena used in the text, of the rhetorical figures applied there, etc.). In each case the reconstruction is made by a real recipient (R1) reading the text and it is made on the basis of rules and conditions that are dynamic, changing with each act of reading, and external to the text. On the third level (L3), the sender indicated in the prescript of James (A3) is correlated with the addressees (R3) mentioned there, namely “the twelve tribes in the dispersion” or “in the diaspora”. So “the twelve tribes” and “the diaspora” are in 185 M. Głowiński, Wirtualny odbiorca w strukturze utworu poetyckiego, [in:] Poetyka. Wybór materiałów, ed. A. Kubale, E. Nawrocka, Gdańsk 1997, p. 85. 186 Id., Odbiór, konotacje, styl, [in:] M. Głowiński, Dzieło wobec odbiorcy. Szkice z komunikacji literackiej, Kraków 1998, p. 117. 187 Ibid., p. 116.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

fact an element of literary creativity linked to the convention in the same way as the creativity of the narrator is. The diaspora, understood in historical terms, can certainly coincide with the real original recipients of the letter (R1a) but it does not have to. The reconstruction of the meaning of the terms “the twelve tribes” and “the diaspora” used to indicate the recipients is always the task of the real individual listener. The general nature and polysemy of both phrases makes it possible to ascribe to them different historical, geographical, ethnic, religious, or even metaphorical and symbolic meanings. On the last level, there is finally the portrayed world and its actors or characters. In the case of James, all the figures mentioned in the text can be included in the group: first of all the Old Testament characters (Abraham, Rahab, Job or Elijah) but also all imaginary opponents addressed by the narrator, merchants and the rich people, created by means of the diatribe. In this sense, the characters include also God and the demons (e.g. James 1:5.12–13.17–18, 2:11.19, 4:12, 5:11). The relations between the sender and the receiver are illustrated in a simplified way in the chart below:188

188 Cf. H. Link, Rezeptionsforschung: Eine Einführung in Methoden und Probleme, Stuttgart 1980, p. 25, after: L. Doering, Ancient Jewish Letter and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament), Tübingen 2012, p. 26. The authors provide a general model of relations in ancient letters and do not refer it specifically to James.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

79

80

Introduction

Author A1 – an external author, a real person believed to be the author of the text – James the Just.

A 2 – the implied author, subject of the creative process, the real creator of the text, whose literary skills can be reconstructed on the basis of the text

Recipient R1 – a particular individual recipient/reader who listens to or reads the letter; a real person/people. R1a – the first historical recipients of James, most probably a Jewish Christian Messianic congregation. R2 – the implied readers, possessing the skills preconceived by the implied author (A2) which help them read the text in accordance with the author’s intention. R3 – the explicit reader mentioned in the text, described in James as “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion”.

A3 – the explicit author, the fictitious author mentioned in the text, the sender and narrator of the letter who introduces himself as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Content of the letter

Communication level L1 – extratextual; real communication between the person who had written the letter and the one who reads it.

L2 – intratextual; an abstract communicative situation reconstructed by a particular reader (R1) on the basis of the text.

L3 – intratextual; the communicative situation mentioned in the letter, e.g. a fictitious dialogue of the sender (A3) with an imaginary opponent.

L4 – intratextual; communicative situations created by the narrator between the characters of the portrayed world.

Since the questions concerning the external and the implied author have already been discussed, now some attention should be given to the explicit author, the sender of the letter indicated in a direct way in the text, who at the same time is its narrator. Lack of precise indication of who James is results in a difficulty to identify the person introducing themselves in the prescript. Moreover, the name Ιάκωβος was very popular both among Palestinian Jews and those living in the diaspora. In

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

the Old Testament, this was the name of the patriarch – the grandson of Abraham, the son of Isaac and Rebekah, and the New Testament enumerates five men named Ιάκωβος:189 the brother of John, son of Zebedee (Mark 1:19–20 and par.; 3:17 and par.; 10:35–40 and par.; 14:32–41 and par.; Acts 12:1–2), James, the father of Judas (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13), James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13); James the Less known also as the Younger (Mark 15:40, mentioned also in Matt 27:56, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10) – since this James is described as the son of Mary or the brother of Joseph, he is sometimes identified with James, the Lord’s brother and often with James, son of Alphaeus,190 and finally James, the Lord’s brother (Matt 13:35, Mark 6:3), the leader of the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18). If we take into account the literary convention, the author (A2) of the letter to the diaspora had to choose someone well-known to the recipients (especially the implied ones – R2) as the narrator (A3); someone of considerable standing in the circles of the first real recipients (R1a), somebody who did not have to be widely introduced.191 Even a brief overview of the letters to the diaspora enumerated earlier shows that respectable figures from the past were employed in them (The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, The Book of Baruch) alongside authorities living and acting in the time closer to the real (external) author (The Letter of Jeremiah from Jer 29, the letters from 2 Macc, 1 Pet, The Letter of Gamaliel). It is difficult to clearly state which option was used by the author of the Letter of James – whether he chose the literary identity of patriarch Jacob, a figure known to every Jew, or maybe the identity of one of the New Testament Jameses from among whom only James, the father of Judas, has to be excluded. James, son of Zebedee, who died as a martyr around 42 AD sentenced by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1–2) is usually excluded, either, on the assumption that the letter was written in the lifetime of the implied sender. But the convention of the letter to the diaspora, which makes it possible to choose as the narrator even a figure from the remote past, allows us to take into consideration also James, the son of Zebedee, all the more that the apostle, as one of the closest disciples of Jesus and a martyr, was highly respected in many early Christian communities. It should be remembered that the son of Zebedee was identified as the author of the Letter of James by Isidore of Seville and by the Codex of Corbie, and very likely also by the First Apocalypse of James from Nag Hammadi.192 As has been said earlier, another apostle – James, the son of Alphaeus – was likewise identified with James the Just. It is commonly accepted, however 189 The name Ιάκωβος is translated as Jacob in the OT and as James in the NT. 190 The identity of the (external) author of the Letter of James and the fact of combining several figures into one within the Christian tradition has already been discussed in the chapter on authorship. 191 P.J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem, p. 92. 192 See above – chap. 1.2.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

81

82

Introduction

that, among the Jameses of the New Testament, it was James, the Lord’s brother and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, who was the best known and most respected figure both in the Jewish and the Christian environment and it was his identity which might have been used as a literary creation by the author of the Letter of James. Nevertheless, due to the lack of explicit data, e.g. more precise description of the function and position of the sender-narrator, all potential options should be considered in the analysis of elements treated as identification indicators – the Old Testament variant (patriarch Jacob) as well as the New Testament variants (James, the son of Zebedee; James, the son of Alphaeus, and James the Just). Using an eminent historical figure as a narrator of a literary text was wellestablished in the tradition. The method was very popular in intertestamental sapiential and apocalyptic literature. It is enough to enumerate here The Book of Wisdom whose narrator is king Solomon, The Book of Daniel, The Book of Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (in Bar 6), The Books of Enoch (1 En and 2 En), The Apocalypse of Baruch, The Testament of Abraham, or Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Close relations between the Letter of James and these literary texts were pointed out by A. Mayer and Gerhard Hartmann already in the forties of the twentieth century – they decided that the subject speaking in the Letter of James was Jacob, the patriarch, admonishing each of the twelve tribes descending from his twelve sons (hence the mention in the prescript of the twelve tribes in the Dispersion – James 1:1). The content of the admonishment was supposed to be linked to the popular etymology of the names of the twelve sons of Jacob (Exod 49, Deut 33), and the whole text was organised around those twelve paraenetic collections. Around the years 80–90 – as the authors claim – Christians adjusted the Jewish apocryphal text to their needs and introduced there the name of Jesus Christ in 1:1 and in 2:1.193 The manoeuver changed the perception of the letter – its Christian recipients less frequently identified the narrator with Jacob, the patriarch, and more frequently with James the Just. Patriarch Jacob as the implied sender of the letter would undoubtedly fit into the structure proposed by Timothy B. Cargal, based on reversed parallelism: since dispersion is mentioned at the beginning of the letter (James 1:1), and unification at the end (James 5:19–20), then Jacob who brings together his sons and teaches them, as in Exod 49, would be an excellent illustration of the idea of creating a new integrated community, new Israel. The phrase used in the prescript, θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος (“a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”), and especially its first part which resembles the introductions of eminent Old Testament figures, particularly prophets (e.g. Amos 3:7, Jer 7:25, Dan 9:10, Zech

193 Cf. G. Hartmann, Der Aufbau des Jakobusbriefes, „Zeitschrift für katholischen Theologie” 66 (1942), p. 63–70.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

1:6, cf. Rev 10:7)194 and historical leaders (e.g. 1 Kings 8:52, 1 Sam 3:10), might be a confirmation that patriarch Jacob could be the sender-narrator of the letter. Particularly meaningful here would be the reference to Ezek 37:15–28, where David is described as the servant of God, but the title is used in reference to patriarch Jacob, too: καὶ κατοικήσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς αὐτῶν ἣν ἐγὼ δέδωκα τῷ δούλῳ (v. 25 They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob). What is of significance here is the eschatological aspect of the prophecy and the prediction of unifying of the dispersed and divided Israel in the land of Jacob and the cleansing of the newly integrated nation (vv. 21–23). These prophetic and eschatological connotations are reflected in the latter part of the prescript (“the twelve tribes”), in the content and convention of the letter comprising advice, instruction, orders and incentives to moral development to create the new community. The term θεοῦ δοῦλος can thus be treated as an honorary title used in reference to Jacob the patriarch, to the prophets and the leaders of Israel, which gives them a mandate to teach and to admonish the people. In the case of the implied sender of the letter, however, the mandate comes not only from God, as in the case of the prophets, but also from “the Lord Jesus Christ”.195 Although the term “servant of the Lord Jesus Christ” is very general,196 it seems that the mention of Jesus Christ should exclude patriarch Jacob from the group of potential narrators. Nevertheless, the convention of the letter to the diaspora and its eschatological and apocalyptic orientation foster far-fetched achronicity which reveals itself, inter alia, in referring to figures living a long time after the narrator. It is manifestly visible e.g. in the Testament of Benjamin, where James’ youngest son speaks about salvation brought by ‘the only begotten’ and describes his passion, death and rising up as well as the accompanying events in the way similar to the depiction of the events in the NT (cf. TBenj 9). Other factors which do not allow for the definite rejection of the identification of James with the patriarch or any of the New Testament Jameses are the kerygma known in the Messianic communities and the hermeneutics pracitised there. The phrase θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος includes four elements of the kerygma: God, Lord, Jesus and Messiah (cf. e.g. Acts 2:36: ἀσφαλῶς οὖν γινωσκέτω πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ ὅτι καὶ κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ χριστὸν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified”). On the one hand, the terms belong to the Old Testament theological tradition (God choosing the anointed one); on the other hand, they

194 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 63. 195 G.H. Rendal, The Epistle, p. 12. 196 R.J. Foster, The Significance of Exemplars for the Interpretation of the Letter of James, Tübingen 2014, p. 29.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

83

84

Introduction

already create the New Testament tradition (Jesus Christ as the Lord). What draws the attention is the embodiment of the title ‘Lord’ by the person of Jesus Christ. The title is derived, of course, from the LXX where it served as the equivalent of the name of God himself and also an honorary title given to certain people to emphasise their moral authority coming from God. Used in reference to Jesus, it meant recognition of his spiritual prerogatives, also as a Messiah whom God entrusted with a redemptive mission.197 The necessity to treat the words ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ as separate and to apply them to different entities entailed theological consequences. Until then, the words Lord and God (in this sequence or in the reverse order) in Jewish theology and poetry had referred to God (e.g. Deut 3:24, Josh 7:7, Judg 21:3, 2 Chron 6:14.16–17.19.40–42, Neh 1:5, Ps 3:8, 7:2.4, 8:2, 10:12 [9:33]; 13[12]:4, 30[29]:13, 59[58]:6, 70[69]:2, 80[79]:5.20, 88[87]:2, 106[105]:47, Isa 26:13, Jer 1:6, 4:10, Dan 3:26.52, 9:15, etc.), and so it is in the body of the Letter of James where they are used interchangeably (James 4:7–10.15, 5:4.11), with the exception of James 2:1, where “the Lord” clearly refers to glorified Christ (cf. the oldest letters of Paul: e.g. 1 Thess 1:1.3.6.8, etc.; Gal 1:3, 6:14.18); and maybe also James 5:7–8 where the title may refer to Christ’s second coming, and James 5:14 where the prayer “in the name of the Lord” is mentioned (cf. John 14:13–14, Acts 3:6). Such an identification of Jesus Christ with the Lord means, as Scot McKnight claims, that the author (or rather the implied author and the narrator) takes the recipients over the threshold of a deep change in the theological thinking about God and the Lord within the Messianic community.198 The change has its roots in the hermeneutics practiced in those communities. All texts which could be interpreted in a Christological way, were interpreted in this manner (cf. e.g. Acts 2:31.34, 3:22–24) and the justification of such an approach was the example of Jesus himself (Matt 13:14–17, Luke 4:17–21, Matt 22:42–45 and par.; John 5:39).199 If Moses, David and the prophets – “the servants of God” – could be the witnesses of Jesus and his works, then the servant of God Jacob the patriarch, as the implied author of the letter, could also point to Jesus the Messiah. But so could do, as the implied senders, the three New Testament Jameses. It would have been even more natural, particularly in the case of James, the son of Zebedee, and James, the son of Alphaeus. As the disciples belonging to the circle of the Twelve, they undoubtedly witnessed the interpretation of the Scriptures practised by Jesus, and they followed the example. James the Just could in turn acquire the method from the Twelve.

197 G.H. Rendal, The Epistle, p. 13. 198 See: S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 64 fn. 23, where attention is being paid to 1 Cor 8:4–6 – there, in the paraphrase of Shema, there is a differentiation missing in James: God is applied to the Father, and the Lord – like in James – to Jesus Christ. 199 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 65.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

A certain identification indicator can be the cultic or liturgical aspect hidden in the phrase “servant of the Lord Jesus Christ”, which is also implicitly signalled in Luke 2:29, Acts 4:29, 16:17, Rev 1:1 in the term δοῦλος itself. The presence of this phrase in James 1:1 is usually explained by its liturgical provenience – it is known that the title ‘Lord’ appeared first in the liturgical practice of Messianic communities to whom most probably James addressed his text. The cultic connotations of the self-presentation may imply his associations with liturgy, or even with the temple. Among all potential narrators, only James the Just had such associations (cf. e.g. HE II 23:3–19). From the theological point of view, very significant but unfortunately not conclusive as far as the identity of the narrator is concerned is the combination of a phrase obviously associated with the Old Testament (“a servant of God”) and a phrase of kerygmatic origin (“a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ”), often employed in the New Testament (e.g. Rom 1:1, Phil 1:1, Titus 1:1, Jude 1, 2 Pet 1:1). The fact that the phrases were combined is confirmed by the sequence of words: θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, where δοῦλος refers both to “God” and to “the Lord Jesus Christ”. The service thus encompasses serving God and serving the Lord,200 although some biblical scholars see an ambiguity here.201 The combination illustrates binarity characteristic of sapiential literature and frequently used in James. Already at the beginning, the implied sender makes a reference to the old and the new theology, which complement each other (cf. Sir 33:14–15, 42:24–25), and to the double, eschatologically oriented understanding of the title “servant”. As James Hardy Ropes points out, the first phrase, “a servant of God”, might indicate position and dignity, but the second one, “a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ”, is the expression of a humble recognition of the authority of Jesus.202 The juxtaposition of a figure which was prominent in the eyes of the recipients of the letter with humble service to Jesus Christ illustrates the inversion of values in the kingdom of God, indicated by Jesus himself. The last remark could point at James, the son of Zebedee, as the narrator. Not only did he witness Jesus teaching about the kingdom of God (so did James, the son of Alphaeus), but his behaviour and greed for privileges generated Jesus’ speech concerning primacy in God’s kingdom: ὃς ἐὰν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν μέγας γενέσθαι, ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος, καὶ ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρῶτος, ἔσται ὑμῶν δοῦλος “Whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave” (Matt 20:26b–27 and par.). The identification of the narrator with James, the son of Zebedee, could also be confirmed by numerous calls for humility and giving up rivalries, which

200 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 45–46. 201 Cf. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 64. 202 J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 117–118; cf. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 57; R.H. Gundry, Commentary on James, Grand Rapids 2011, p. 25.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

85

86

Introduction

can be found in the letter (James 1:9–10a; 2:1.5, 3:14, 4:1–2.6.9–10), and of course references to the content of the teaching of Jesus. Another function of the juxtaposition of phrases is combining and showing connection between old and new Israel, which can be clearly seen in the latter part of the prescript, where the twelve tribes are mentioned. The continuation could have been emphasised by alluding to patriarch Jacob who, as the Father of old Israel, might extend his auspices to the new one, created in the end times (cf. the reference to Ezek 37:15–28, mentioned above). But James the Just could also be the patron of the continuation since – as his reconstructed biography has shown – he was the guard of Jewish orthodoxy in the Messianic communities. The combined phrases might thus serve as elements facilitating the identification of James, if we take into account their historical connotations – the usually very dramatic fates of “the servants of God”, the prophets. The same faithfulness to God which characterised the Old Testament prophets is now transferred to the servant of “the Lord Jesus Christ”. The best messengers of the idea of remaining faithful in spite of circumstances would be the martyrs – James, the son of Zebedee, and James the Just. An additional clue here would be the encouragement to rejoice in suffering and to patiently bear all tribulations in the hope of receiving “the crown of life” (James 1:2–4.12, 5:10–11). As we can see, on the one hand the scarcity of information in the prescriptive self-presentation of the sender hinders his unquestionable identification; on the other hand, it does not allow the exclusion of neither patriarch Jacob nor James, the son of Zebedee, or James, the son of Alphaeus, or James the Just, as the possible narrators. Underlining his authority, the implied sender of the letter does not point to any local institution or any functions performed there, or to a biological kinship with Jesus,203 but to God’s election, in which he resembles not only patriarchs and prophets but also the apostles. The ambiguity might be intentional and it fits into the generic convention of a protreptic or a letter to the diaspora. As an example of protreptic literature, the Letter of James does not offer any new teaching but – as all sapiential literature – by referring to well-known concepts, it encourages the recipients to seek real wisdom and to improve the ways of practising it. Thus, the narrator does not have to introduce himself as, for instance, an apostle proclaiming novel ideas. Moreover, as a letter to the diaspora – a circular letter, the epistle was probably read out in many congregations. Since no precise clues are offered by the text itself, each congregation could identify the sender on the basis of their own extratextual background and competences, invoking their own axiological systems and accepted authorities. It must be noted that an arbitrary choice or rejection of any of the biblical Jameses as the narrator does not influence in any significant way

203 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 63.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

the perception of the ideas expressed in the letter but it certainly creates perceptive background for the utterances of the implied sender. Other difficulties emerge when we try to determine the actual place where the Letter of James was written. As no hints whatsoever are provided by the text itself, the question belongs to the extratextual level (L1). If we understand “the diaspora” mentioned in the prescript in a literal and geographical sense – as a territory where Jews lived outside Palestine204 – then the letters to the diaspora, in accordance with the convention, should be sent there from Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the centre from which the tribes of Israel dispersed around the world and to which they returned in pilgrimages, and where – as it was believed – they would be brought together in the eschatological Messianic era and united again. The letters to the diaspora in 2 Macc, as the text implies, were written in Jerusalem: “To their brothers, the Jews living in Egypt, from their brothers, the Jews in Jerusalem and Judaea, greetings and untroubled peace” (2 Macc 1:1); “The people of Jerusalem and of Judaea, the senate and Judas, to Aristobulus, tutor to King Ptolemy and one of the family of the anointed priests, and to the Jews in Egypt, greetings and good health” (2 Macc 1:10). There are, however, literary letters to the diaspora, which do not specify where they were sent from; Jerusalem is only suggested by the narrative in which they were incorporated: “These are the words of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the remaining elders among the exiles, and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people” (Jer 29:1). Sometimes there are no clear clues even in the narrative but there are subtle suggestions that the letter – addressed to those who “were carried away captive”, to the tribes living on the river Euphrates – was also written in the exile: “We also have gone forth from the land, and Zion has been taken from us, and we have nothing now save the Mighty One and His law” (2 Bar 85:3, cf. Bar 1:1–2). Finally, there are letters to the diaspora where the senders themselves, in a metaphorical way, declare that the letter was written outside Palestine: “Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings” (1 Pet 5:13). In James, there are no indicators of this kind but it does not mean that the convention has been violated as no such clues can be found e.g. in The Letter of Jeremiah in Bar 6, either. If we assume that the real author (A1) of the Letter of James was James the Just, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and that the letter as an encyclical was sent to all Christian communities living in Palestine and outsider Palestine (R1a), then the scholars almost unanimously point at Palestine and Jerusalem as the place where the text was written. It cannot be excluded, however, that the letter was composed in the diaspora; one of the possibilities is Egyptian Alexandria. The images used in the text: the sea and water (James 1:6, 3:7.12, 5:7.18), a ship (James 3:4), remarks

204 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

87

88

Introduction

about business relations (James 4:13–15), instructions of sapiential nature, which Alexandria was famous for (James 1:5–6, 3:13–18), and also interpretation of the Law without making references to its ritual aspects such as the requirement of ritual purity or participation in worship, could all be arguments in support of the sea port of Alexandria. Instead of the ritual, the ethical aspect of the Law is accentuated. Nevertheless, such an approach to the Law does not have to indicate the difference between Judaism in the diaspora and Palestinian Judaism; it rather indicates the sapiential provenance of the text. The second hypothetical place where the letter might have been written outside Jerusalem is Rome, the city which had very strong contacts with Jerusalem in the first century.205 The argumentation in support of this theory is mainly based on extratextual premises and on comparison of James to Roman Christian writings of the first and the second century – namely, on the similarity of the Letter of James to 1 Pet, 1 Clem. and to The Shepherd of Hermas, which were created in Rome.206 Identification of the recipients of the letter also creates difficulties, mainly because biblical scholars usually combine two levels – the extratextual level L1 and the real first historical recipients of the text R1a, and the intertextual level L3 and the explicit addressees mentioned in the prescript – R3. Sometimes, when receptive competence is discussed, they also refer to level L2 and the implied recipients R2. The most widespread view concerning the addressees of the letter (R1a) is the one which points at Jewish Christians in general, without specifying how the terms “the twelve tribes” and “the Dispersion” should be understood. Arguments are derived from the body of the letter which a number of times alludes to the teaching of Jesus and to his interpretation of the Torah, where the speaker draws abundantly upon the sapiential tradition. The implied author (A2) might have used Jewish imagery but equipped with Christian meaning (e.g. the combination of images in James 1:16–18 belongs to loci communes of the early Church rather than to Jewish teaching). It is believed that he included expressions typical of Christianity and not of Judaism (e.g. references to “the coming of the Lord” in 5:7–8)207 on the assumption that his recipients (R2) would read the signals correctly, that is in a Christian context. At the other extreme, there is a thesis that the letter was actually addressed to Christians of pagan descent (R1) who were already acquainted with symbolism of Jewish provenance but – similarly to the author of James (A2) – apply to it new meanings (R2), e.g. in “the twelve tribes” they see new Israel understood in ecclesiastical and inclusive terms, where ethnic issues do not play a decisive role.208 The supporters of this view draw attention to the lack of terminology and 205 206 207 208

R. Bauckham, James, p. 23. D.B. Deppe, The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James, Chelsea 1989, p. 211–215. D.G. McCartney, James, p. 34. W. Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT), Leipzig 2001, p. 90.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

ideas typical of Judaism, such as Israel, Israelites, Moses, Jerusalem, the temple, priesthood, Shabbat, circumcision, dietary laws, fasting, etc. The fact that these elements are missing is explained by the lack of interest in these issues among ethno-Christians, and the choice of those Jewish terms and images which could be equipped with a new Christian meaning.209 A consensual solution would be indicating as the recipients of the letter (R1) both Jewish and ethnic Christians, united by their (active) faith in Jesus as the Messiah (R2). The fact of including a pagan woman, Rahab, in the sequence of characters who gave witness to their faith is usually quoted as one of the arguments to support the view. Thus, faith and works resulting from it are not a matter of ethnic affiliation, and new Israel is an inclusive community which keeps referring to its Jewish roots. This could explain both the presence of Jewish elements in the text and the absence of themes crucial for Judaism. For the recipients of the Letter of James (R2), theological questions and controversies concerning the inheritance of promises by the Jews and the Gentiles were not relevant; they were interested in very practical issues: hypocrisy and discrepancies between the declared faith (in Christ) and the actual conduct.210 Such an inclusive approach might be confirmed by the use of the apostrophe “brothers”, treated here as a clue to identify the recipients and not a rhetorical (transitive) element. On the one hand the term “brothers”, especially in the letters to the diaspora, may refer to Jews – so it does e.g. in 2 Macc 1:1, or to Jewish Christians as in Acts (2:29, 3:17, 7:2, 13:15.26.38, 22:1, 23:1.5.6, 23:17), but on the other hand – the term is used with the same frequency in reference to all Christians – Acts 1:16, 6:3, 15:7.13, regardless of their ethnicity, as it is done in the letters of Paul, in 1 John 3:13 or in 2 Pet 1:10. Apart from such general statements, there also appear commentaries trying to work out in more detail the phrase ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ (to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion). Such attempts seem to be justifiable, especially when we notice that the presentation of the explicit recipients of the letter (R3) is made in the way similar to the presentation of the explicit sender (A3) and consists of two elements. The first definition is “the twelve tribes”, and the second one – “in dispersion”. Reading them separately does not pose any problems but combining them might be troublesome. The phrase “the twelve tribes” (δώδεκα φυλαί) undoubtedly entails historical, geographical, symbolic and eschatological connotations. Firstly, it brings to mind patriarch Jacob and his twelve sons, then the tribes descending from them which, after the flight from Egypt and settlement in the Promised Land, gave rise to historical Israel (Josh 13–19). Here the first difficulty may arise because the territories

209 Ibid. 210 D.G. McCartney, James, p. 36.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

89

90

Introduction

were divided among the twelve tribes descending from Jacob’s twelve sons, but Joseph was replaced by his two sons – Manasseh and Ephraim (Josh 16–17), and Levi and his descendants had no land appropriation (Josh 13:14.33, 14:4, 18:7). The first division of thus organised kingdom took place after the death of Solomon, when the split resulted in the emergence of the southern Kingdom of Judah, encompassing the territory of Judah and Benjamin, and the northern Kingdom of Israel, comprising the territories of the remaining ten tribes. Since that moment, the phrase “twelve tribes” acquired a more symbolic, and, simultaneously, more ceremonial meaning – with time it lost its administrative, territorial and even historical connotations, as the real division into tribes no longer existed, and acquired a clearly religious meaning. The division into “the twelve tribes” lost its significance even more visibly after Assyrian victories in the eighth century BC, when the northern tribes were deported to Mesopotamia, and after Babylonian victories in the seventh and sixth centuries BC when the southern tribes were conquered and exiled.211 God, however, promised through his prophets that he would bring together the exiles of Israel and recreate the twelve tribes (Isa 11:11–12, Jer 3:18, 31:8–14, Ezek 37:21–22, Zech 10:6–12, 2 Chron 19:24, 30:1). So the hope of the regeneration of “the twelve tribes” reflected the common eschatological but also historical expectations, visible already at the time of the Babylonian exile, what is evidenced by the extract from Ezek 37:21–22, relevant for the identification of the explicit author and the recipients: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.

The hope seemed to be really high in the intertestamental times, which is confirmed by the habit of emphasising the affiliation with one of the tribes (e.g. Tob 1:1, Jdt 8:2, Luke 2:10, Rom 11:1 and Phil 3:8) and flourishing of the apocalyptic and eschatological literature that gladly harkened back to the tradition of Jacob and his sons. In the Testament of Benjamin (9:2), coming most probably from the second century BC212 and belonging to the collection of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, we can read: “Nevertheless the temple of God shall be in your portion, and the last (temple) shall be more glorious than the first. And the twelve tribes shall

211 R. Bauckham, James, p. 15. 212 Testamenty dwunastu patriarchów. Wstęp, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, p. 44–45.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

be gathered together there, and all the Gentiles […]”.213 The apocalyptic feature is even more visible in the descriptions of the judgement which will be performed by the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. The Testament of Abraham 13:5: “For every man has come from the first-created, and therefore they are first judged here by his son, and at the second coming they shall be judged by the twelve tribes of Israel, every breath and every creature”214 ) or by their representatives (e.g. Rev 5:7–8, 21:12). Echoes of this tradition can also be seen in the activity and teaching of Jesus – in the choice of the Twelve, who are to be the seeds of new Israel (Matt 19:28 cf. Luke 22:30), and in the reconstructed testimony of apostle Paul (Acts 26:7).215 By indicating “the twelve tribes” as explicit recipients (R3), the author of the Letter of James (A2) clearly refers to that apocalyptic and eschatological tradition and, thereby, to the symbolic understanding of the phrase δώδεκα φυλαί as an eschatological quantity or even a certain ‘foretaste’ of the kingdom of God. Intertextual strategies used here – mainly allusions and reminiscences – draw our attention to the integrational understanding of the term “the twelve tribes” in the quoted texts: it is set in the context of reunification. The other definition of the explicit recipients of the letter – ‘the diaspora’ or ‘the dispersion’ – seems to contradict this idea. Thus, there emerges again the binarity based on opposition, so characteristic of sapiential literature: on the one hand there is an image of unification (“the twelve tribes”), and on the other hand – the image of “dispersion” (“the diaspora”). The tradition of interpreting the word “diaspora” in the Letter of James is long and diversified. The first associations, as in the case if “the twelve tribes”, lead us to the historical and geographical understanding of the word, which became a technical term to describe all nations and territories outside Palestine where Jewish people lived (2 Macc 1:27, John 7:35). It was originally used only with reference to the Babylonian exile (cf. Jer 28:4 – LXX 35:4)216 and the deportation which took place after the conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. It must be remembered, however, that in that time there already existed a Jewish diaspora outside Palestine – the descendants of the ten northern tribes deported by the Assyrians to the territories located on the river Euphrates;217 moreover, Babylonian deportations were taking place even before the fall of Jerusalem. After the edict of king Cyrus II of Persia (339 BC),

213 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Testament of Benjamin The Twelfth Son of Jacob and Rachel, https://www.sefaria.org/The_Testaments_of_the_Twelve_Patriarchs%2C_The_Testament_ of_Benjamin_the_Twelfth_Son_of_Jacob_and_Rachel.1.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en [accessed: 11.07.2019]. 214 The Testament of Abraham, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1007.htm [accessed: 11.07.2019]. 215 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 126–127. 216 S. Jędrzejewski, Judaizm diaspory, p. 9. 217 R. Bauckham, James, p. 15.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

91

92

Introduction

a large number of people returned to Judah, but many affluent families remained in the Persian Empire. Its end came with the expansion of Alexander the Great, and this is when the political and cultural hegemony of Greeks started, leading to the emergence of syncretic Hellenistic culture. The Hellenistic culture abolished boundaries between former cultures of the East and the West, which in turn resulted in specific, Hellenised orientation of former oriental and Egyptian religions and, after Alexander’s conquest of Judah, also of Hellenised Judaism.218 Hellenised Judaism, as has already been mentioned, developed both in Palestine and in the diaspora, especially in the western diaspora in Egypt. Hellenisation of the occupied territories and non-violent policy towards the conquered nations fostered cultural unity of the Macedonian empire as well as intranational migration. What could be observed in that time due to migration from Judaea was the emergence and growing of the existing Jewish communities in Egypt and in the whole Mediterranean region. Similar processes were taking place in Roman times, when the population of Jewish communities in Rome and in the western regions of the Roman empire grew substantially. The most numerous was certainly the diaspora in Alexandria,219 which undoubtedly had a tremendous cultural impact on Palestinian Jews. In the intertestamental period, Jews from Jerusalem remained in close contact with both eastern and western diasporas, without being biased in favour of any of them. So if the diaspora is understood in such a collective way and the term is not limited, as it is commonly done, only to the communities in the West, then it might turn out – as Richard Bauckham notes – that “the twelve tribes” and “the diaspora” where indeed the descendants of all tribes of Israel lived, including the ten so-called lost tribes, may be understood synonymously (if we assume that the phrase “twelve tribes” has a meaning as definite as “the diaspora”).220 As a kind of an encyclical, the Letter of James could have circulated among the communities of the western and the eastern diaspora.221 Bauckham, as most commentators, clearly links here the explicit recipients indicated in James 1:1 (R3) with the first, historical addressees of the letter (R1a) who in his view were Jewish Messianic communities living outside Palestine. Historical and territorial understanding of the term “diaspora” is also associated with the national aspect. The created addressees and the first real recipients of the letter were supposedly Messianic Jews who considered themselves to be the foundation of renewed Israel; all other Jews who did not recognise Jesus as the Lord and the Messiah yet were at the stage of gradually discovering this truth. This would mean that the Letter of James was actually addressed to all Jews – to those 218 219 220 221

S. Jędrzejewski, Judaizm diaspory, p. 12. Ibid., p. 14. R. Bauckham, James, p. 16. Ibid., p. 15.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

who had already accepted Jesus as the Messiah as well as to those who would do it in the future.222 The borderline between the Messianic community and the rest of Jewish society was anyway rather vague. James 2:1–12 describes a community which still gathers at a synagogue (2:2). The associations with biblical and extrabiblical sapiential literature have already been extensively discussed: lack of references to Jewish institutions and customs (e.g. celebrating the Shabbat, circumcision, ritual purity) could be explained by this generic affinity – after all, such motifs never or hardly ever appear in The Book of Wisdom, in Ben Sira or in the Proverbs, either. This means that the introductory phrase “twelve tribes in the Dispersion” may be understood as a Messianic but at the same time ethnic and national religious community which does not intend to separate itself from Israel;223 on the contrary – it looks forward to reunification of the whole Israel around the belief that Jesus is the Lord and the Messiah. Such a community would be equipped with appropriate competence to read all intertextual phenomena in accordance with the intentions of the explicit sender and the implied author. However, the question arises why such competence would have been possessed by Jewish recipients living in the diaspora and not possessed by those living in Palestine. Maybe the meaning of “the diaspora” should be narrowed down to those who had to leave Jerusalem at the time when the Letter of James was written. This on the one hand reduces the historical understanding of the term “dispersion”, and on the other hand does not exclude Palestinian Jewish Christians who had to leave Jerusalem because of persecution and settled in Samaria or in rural areas of Judaea (Acts 8:1, cf. 9:31, 11:19.29).224 Such an interpretation could be confirmed by the reassurances to persevere in the time of persecution and to patiently endure all trials (James 1:2–4, 5:10–11). This would mean that also the author of James (A2) and the sender of the letter (A3) reinterpret the notion of “the diaspora” in a more symbolic and theological manner, closer to the convention of the letter to the diaspora. The fact of combining of the two introductory terms, “the twelve tribes” and “the diaspora”, leads to placing emphasis on the metaphorical meaning of the whole phrase. It usually results in a more exclusive perception of the recipients of the letter – they are seen as new Israel, that is the Church, descending from the twelve tribes of the chosen people and now dispersed among the Jews who have rejected Christ (cf. Acts 26:6–7 where the term δώδεκα φυλαί indicates them as heirs to the promise given by God to their ancestors and now expecting the promise to be fulfilled). The understanding of new Israel as the Church entails the danger of

222 Ibid., p. 16. Cf. J. Neusner, Introduction: What Is a Judaism, [in:] The Brother of Jesus, p. 1–9. 223 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 67. 224 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 129.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

93

94

Introduction

transferring Paul’s theology to the Letter of James, since in his theology Israel and all Old Testament terminology associated with this notion is used in reference to the Church as new Israel, the Messianic community of the people of God, consisting of both the Jews and the gentiles (cf. Gal 6:15–16). New Israel, understood in such an ecclesiastical way, would be forced to live among the Jews so, paradoxically enough, Messianic Jews and the God-fearers would create a diaspora among the Jews. In this context, the symbolic meaning of “the diaspora” is sometimes more general, abstract and spiritual. In Old Testament literature, “dispersion” is often treated as a synonym of captivity. The sender of James could also hint at such understanding, contrasting attachment to this world with the attachment to God. Attachment to the world would be an imprisonment/ diaspora for new Israel. Generally, the sojourn in this world could mean exile and imprisonment – for this reason new Israel, which is a spiritual reality, remains in earthly exile, in “the diaspora”, and is constantly on the way.225 This interpretation shows the transfer of some of the motifs from 1 Pet to James (Christians as exiles and pilgrims living among the gentiles – 1 Pet 2:11). The generic affinity and convention of 1 Pet and of James gave rise to a similar perception of the addressees of both letters. The sender of 1 Pet directs his epistle to those who live in dispersion, in the same way as the addressees of the Letter of James, but he states precisely that he only means the ones “who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood” (1 Pet 1:2); in James the clarification is missing. Moreover, 1 Pet has proved quite unique among other early Christian writings which, in general, do not use the term “diaspora” to describe the Church.226 The transfer of the motifs from 1 Pet to James also resulted in the emergence of a theory that the addressees of the Letter of James (R1) could have been Jewish Christians, a Messianic community coming from among Jews and living in the diaspora in Greek environment, now being a minority not only among the gentiles but also among ethno-Christians who did not attach much significance to obedience to the Law. This would be evidenced on the one hand by the excellent command of the Greek language displayed in the letter and by references to classical and epistolographical rhetorical models, and on the other hand – by the affection for Jewish literature and laws cultivated in the diaspora as the expression of the attachment to the religion and homeland of the ancestors. This theory encompasses the conviction that, as a letter to the diaspora, James was addressed to the community which, after the death of James and the destruction of the temple, was compelled to seek refuge in Pella, one of the cities of the Decapolis. There, the Church discipline

225 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 45. 226 R. Bauckham, James, p. 14.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

loosened. In the new circumstances, there was no coming back to Jerusalem times, but the times could be evoked – firstly, by the reference to James as the author of the letter, secondly, by quoting the reinterpreted Law reduced in the new situation to the commandment of love.227 As this brief overview of ideas and theories shows, most commentaries focus on extratextual reality (L1) when trying to identify the recipients described in James 1:1. The difficulty lies not so much in the explanation of both phrases – “the twelve tribes” and “the diaspora”, as in their combination. But the method applied here seems to be the same strategy which has been used to present the explicit sender of the letter – the already mentioned binarity based on oppositions, characteristic of sapiential literature: on the one hand, we can find the image of unity (“the twelve tribes”), on the other hand – the image of “dispersion” (“diaspora”). The combination of these notions points at fullness, which suggests that they should be examined together. As demonstrated above – the phrase “twelve tribes” has a symbolic meaning. It belongs to intertestamental apocalyptic and eschatological terminology and should be understood in this context as an inclusive community of the end times. The implied author (A2) does not specifically refer to ethnic issues, so analysing them on this level (L3) may be treated as certain overinterpretation. The clue might be the already quoted prophetic texts about reunification and the kingdom of God which, in the final days, will encompass not only Israel but all nations. In this way, in “the twelve tribes” converge both historical aspects (the reference to the sons of Jacob) and expectations concerning things to come (the future inclusive community), characteristic of eschatologically oriented sapiential literature. Such broad understanding of “the twelve tribes” is also suggested by the literary convention – as a letter to the diaspora, the Letter of James was an epistle directed to many Christian communities, regardless of their national profile. It can be thus concluded that the term describes the Church understood inclusively as new Israel (devoid of the idea of replacement but implying continuation), though no dependence on Paul’s teaching should be sought here, rather the convergence of ideas. The symbolic reading of “the twelve tribes” dictates a similar understanding of the second part of the presentation of the explicit recipients – “the diaspora”. If together they are supposed to depict fullness, and the first term refers to the past and the future, then the second one must refer to the present time. “The dispersion” would then describe the present situation of the addressees. It is hardly ever noted that “the diaspora” is treated as God’s punishment for the sins, and so it is in the case of “the letters to the diaspora” quoted here. The content of the letter leaves no doubt, either: sins consuming the community lead to its destruction. The dominating

227 Cf. É. Trocmé, Pierwsze kroki, p. 49.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

95

96

Introduction

sins are partiality in the treatment of the poor and the rich and the temptation to judge one’s neighbours (James 2:1–7.9.12, 3:1, 4:11–12, 5:9). Both of them lead to exclusion of others from the community and, consequently, to its dispersion. James 5:19–20 alludes to this when it suggests that the correct conduct is turning sinners back from a wrong way and leaving them in the community, and not rejecting them. Such an interpretation of the contrasting binarity unification-dispersion has its theological background, too, developed in the body of the letter: the only one who unites (“the twelve tribes”) and the only one who dispels (“diaspora”) is God. Wisdom, discussed in the Letter of James, consists, among other things, in resisting the temptation to usurp God’s prerogatives and in the refusal to judge others (James 4:11–12). As can be seen, the generality of the presentation of the explicit sender (A3) corresponds to the generality of the presentation of the explicit recipients (R3). What can be noticed are the similarities in conceptualisation of the subsequent parts of the presentation: the description of James as “a servant of God” has both historical and – through the reference to the prophecy in Ezek 37:25 – eschatological connotations. Describing the narrator of the letter as “a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ” in turn depicts his present situation. The relations in the depiction of recipients are arranged in a similar way: the term “twelve tribes” has historical and eschatological connotations – it depicts a community which is rooted in history but is an eschatological entity at the same time (the text quoted here in the first place is also Ezek 37:21–22). The term “diaspora” describes in turn the present situation of the addressees who, by judging and excluding others from the community, lead to its dispersion. The community – due to the conduct of its members – is exposed to trials and ordeals and, in particular, to the temptation of taking over God’s prerogatives. Undoubtedly, the majority of early Christian communities in the first century was fraught with similar problems,228 so the implied author of James (A2) used the convention of a letter to the diaspora, directed at all communities. The question of whether the first real recipients of the letter (R1a) were Messianic Jewish

228 Cf. e.g. The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch (first/second century) to the Smyrnaeans: “But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty” (Smyr. VI:2), http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm [accessed: 14.07.2019] or The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (first/second century): “And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick, and not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the poor, but always providing for that which is becoming in the sight of God and man; abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unjust judgment; keeping far off from all covetousness, not quickly crediting [an evil report] against any one, not severe in judgment, as knowing that we are all under a debt of sin”. (Pol. Phil. VI:1), http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm [accessed: 14.07.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Sender and addressees

Christians or ethno-Christians or maybe blended communities living in or outside Palestine, in the western or in the eastern diaspora, remains an extratextual issue (L1).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

97

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

2.

The Structural Commentary

The analysis of the structure of the Letter of James has shown that the text is coherent and structured, but the coherence and structure are not based on linear progress but on the development of motifs listed in the index in James 3:17–18. The elements which organise the content of the letter are features and attributes of real wisdom coming from God. Their order refers to the double commandment of love – there are references to God and his Law and to interpersonal relations. The commentary presented below, focusing mainly on the features of wisdom, is based on that non-linear structure. Wisdom σοφία from above ἄνωθεν pure ἁγνή irenic εἰρηνική gentle/willing to yield ἐπιεικής obedient [to the law] εὐπειθής full of mercy μεστὴ ἐλέους full of good fruits μεστὴ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν

impartial ἀδιάκριτος unhypocritical ἀνυπόκριτος

2.1

References James 1:5–8.16–18 James 1:12–15.21a.27 James 1:19–20, 4:1–3 James 1:21b; 4:7–10.16, 5:10–11 James 1:22–25, 2:10–12 James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20 James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18 James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3 James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12

Wisdom comes from above (James 1:5–8.16–18)

1:5

If any of you lacks wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously/sincerely/equally and without resentment/ungrudgingly, and it will be given you. 6 But ask in faith/with faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; 7 must not expect to receive anything from the Lord; 8 for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way. 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. 17 Every generous act of giving, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to solstice. 18In fulfilment of his own will/decision/promise he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

The beginning of the description of wisdom as a gift coming from God clearly refers to the patterns of sapiential literature both in terms of content and in terms

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

100

The Structural Commentary

of the binary structure. Since wisdom is difficult to define1 , Jewish biblical and extrabiblical literature uses images which present its origin and features. “The Lord gives wisdom” – proclaims Prov 2:6 (cf. Sir 1:1); finding it means finding (new) life and obtaining grace from the Lord (Prov 8:35). Wisdom is a gift one should ask for because no one can achieve it on their own (Wis 7:7, 8:21, cf. 1 Kings 3:9–11). The narrator of James follows the same path when in 1:5–8.16–18 he develops the motif of “wisdom from above”, described in 3:17, stressing three crucial theological points present in the initial sentence (1:5),2 in the transition (1:16) and in the final sentence (1:18). Theological character of this reflection is dictated by the necessity of directly referring to God as the giver of wisdom, although anthropological elements are not missing, either – they are visible in the binary structure of the utterance. In the initial sentence, which outlines further theological (or theological and anthropological) deliberations, a man who lacks wisdom is juxtaposed with God, who is its source and giver. In the presentation of a man who asks for wisdom and in the presentation of God who brings wisdom, there appear the same oppositional aspects,3 which can be presented in the form of a chart:

1 In many commentaries there appear definitions of wisdom described in James, e.g. wisdom as world order, wisdom as a set of principles that organise the world or the conduct of man in accordance with these principles (D.H. Edgar, Has God not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James (JSNTSup 206), Sheffield 2001, p. 144); wisdom as a measure enabling us to act (T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 66); wisdom as practicing justice (or justice in practice), as virtue, as insight into God’s will and the measure to implement this will (D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 62); finally, wisdom may be identified with the Holy Spirit (P.H. Davids, James, p. 56). 2 In spite of the use of anadiplosis/polyptoton (λειπόμενοι ends v. 4, and λείπεται begins v. 5) as a verbal connector of vv. 4–5, the lines are not thematically consistent. Admittedly, de is used here as a connective or discourse marker, but both the conjunction and the rhetorical figures mentioned above are often considered to be simple editorial measures that do not have much influence on the coherence and on the content; see: review of opinions in: H. Krabbendam, The Epistle of James, p. 230. 3 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 64.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom comes from above (James 1:5–8.16–18)

Man Lack of wisdom (v. 5)

God Source and giver of wisdom (v. 5)

“If any of you lacks wisdom”

“It will be given you”

A positive aspect Faith (v. 6)

A negative aspect Doubts (v. 6)

A positive aspect

A negative aspect

“Ask in faith”

“Never doubting” Not receiving anything from God4 (v. 7)

Generosity/ sincerity equality (v. 5)

Excuses implying selectivity and exclusiveness (v. 5)

“Who gives to all generously”?

“without resentment/ ungrudgingly”

Receiving wisdom (v. 5)

“Must not expect to “It will be receive given [to] you” anything from the Lord” Theological and anthropological deliberations are centred here around two imperatives αἰτείτω (ask) in vv. 5 and 6. In the first case αἰτείτω is followed by the name of the addressee of the request – God, and all attention is focused on him. God is the one who gives (the characteristic durative part. praes. act., suggesting permanence and constancy of God’s giving), who gives to “all” (πᾶς), “ungrudgingly” (μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος) so he has no favourites (cf. James 2:1–5.9, 4:6), who gives “generously/sincerely/equally” (ἁπλῶς). The adverb ἁπλῶς, belonging to hapax legomena, is quite difficult to translate with one word. Its meaning is usually shaped by the context, and the contexts, the word’s relatedness to the adjective ἁπλότης as well as its use in sapiential and intertestamental literature (eleven times in the LXX) usually point at such meanings as kindly, sincerely, fairly, honestly (cf. Prov 10:9, Wis 1:1) and generously (cf. 3 Macc 3:21). The root ἁπλο- expresses also the idea of simplicity, unity, indivisibility, integrity, which is sometimes exposed in sapiential extratestamental literature, e.g. in The Testament of Issachar.5 In James 1:5–8 both semantic fields are applicable – the one indicating generosity or sincerity, and the one signifying similarity, unity and integrity. Theological considerations around the first αἰτείτω begin and end with the same verb – δίδωμι, which introduces two 4 The oppositions are itemised in a different way by T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 69. 5 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 55; D.H. Edgar, Has God not Chosen, p. 145.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

101

102

The Structural Commentary

ways of speaking about God: directly (διδούς where God is the subject) and with the use of passivum theologicum (δοθήσεται). The second αἰτείτω in v. 6 has an anthropological character and starts a reflection upon human demeanour. In accordance with the rules governing sapiential literature, two types of conduct are contrasted in the way shown in the chart: a positive one, desirable, and a negative one, undesirable. The first one is characterised by faith and lack of doubts, the second one by distrust, inner conflict, lack of peace (v. 8). The first attitude is described with adverbial phrases (“in faith, never doubting” ἐν πίστει, μηδὲν διακρινόμενος); the second one – with the help of a mini-parable that makes use of an image frequently employed in Greek and in sapiential literature, namely, the image of a man similar to a sea wave (κλύδων θαλάσσης) which, tossed by the wind (ἀνεμίζομαι), rises and falls down (ῥιπιζομαι). As in the case of wisdom in v. 5, also here the narrator of James does not explain in what way faith should be understood. More attention is paid to doubts, which helps the recipient to understand faith as the denial of doubt (faith = no doubt), at least in some aspects. It seems that doubts in James mean an attitude and a fixed characteristic since they are expressed with the use of part. praes. med et pass. (διακρινόμενος) and defined as the reason for an inner conflict (δίψυχος) and inconstancy in every aspect of human life (ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ).6 The term διακρινόμενος basically means differentiation and contradistinction (as in James 2:4) as well as evaluating, judging or inner conflict (hence the idea of doubt and hesitation). What is expressed here is the opposition not only in reference to faith which in this context would mean counter-favouritism, counter-evaluation, counter-judgment, but also in reference to God who – as has been shown – gives to “all” (treats fairly all beneficiaries), “generously/sincerely/ equally” (does not differentiate the gift or does not limit it), ‘ungrudgingly’, ‘without judging’ (does not judge). Analogical oppositions are also expressed by the adjectives δίψυχος and ἀκατάστατος. The adjective δίψυχος and its links with the OT have already been discussed;7 what needs to be reminded here is the fact that it means doublemindedness, hesitation, a certain ‘spiritual schizophrenia’, division of soul that leads to lack of integrity in thinking, speaking and action.8 This is not only a contra-

6 Some scholars point out that doubts, and in particular a double heart, are understood here in the same way as in the OT and in intertestamental literature – as the beginning of sin (cf. E.g. Ps 12:3, 1 Chron 12:33, Sir 1:28, TAsh 1:3–6:2, TBenj 6:5–7, 1QS 3:17–18, 4:23. A similar description of a sinner as a double-hearted person can also be found in early Christian literature (e.g. in The Shepherd by Hermas, Commandments 11–12 [43:11–15; 46:5–48:4]: in the Didache V:1, or in the Epistle of Barnabas 20:1, cf. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 58). 7 See above – chap. 1.4. 8 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 155.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom comes from above (James 1:5–8.16–18)

diction of faith, because faith means lack of hesitation, integrity and total confidence in God, but also a confrontation with God who offers his gift “generously/sincerely/ equally”. In this context, the meaning of the adverb ἁπλῶς should be also taken into consideration as it stresses the idea of ‘unity’, ‘simplicity’ and ‘lack of division’. God is the one who does not hesitate to give, and he bestows his gifts in a way that reflects the integrity of his words and actions, that is his promises and their fulfilment (cf. James 1:18). The second adjective describing doubts – ἀκατάστατος, a hapax legomenon like the previous one (in the NT it can only be found in James 3:8), means lack of stability, inconsistency. On the one hand, harking back to Isa 54:11 (LXX) and the effects of a violent storm, it refers to the mini-parable in James 1:6 and sums it up; on the other hand, it opens up another opposition: inconstancy of man – constancy of God, developed in James 1:16–17. In conclusion, it might be said that defining doubts in James 1:6–8 helps to determine the meaning of the notion of faith as its opposite. Faith would be thus understood as a fixed attitude to God and would mean lack of favouritism, lack of assessment or judgement of one’s neighbours, simplicity and integrity of thoughts, speech and action. It is not difficult to notice that such faith is correlated with the theological reflection of James. God as the donator bestows the gift of wisdom regardless of the person, without favouring anybody, without assessing the beneficiaries or limiting the gift, in a way that is consistent with his integrity and constancy. Therefore, a man who asks God for wisdom should imitate God himself. The introductory theological and anthropological deliberations are again followed in James by the depiction of the opposition between man and God (1:8.16). Man can either act with faith or succumb to doubts, but God – as has been indicated in v. 5 with the adverb ἁπλῶς – is integrated, indivisible and, consequently – unchangeable and constant in his promises, decisions and gifts. Introducing further theological thoughts, the narrator of James employs transitively the apostrophe “my beloved brothers” ἀδελφοί, μου ἀγαπητοί, and the unexpected warning “do not be deceived” Μὴ πλανᾶσθε (James 1:16), which can be understood ironically. This is not a coincidence that the previous part of the reflection finishes with the presentation of a negative, and not a positive, attitude and the statement that man may be “unstable in every way”. The ironic warning would then refer to creating the image of God based on the image of a double-minded, fickle man,9 which is then developed in v. 17 in the context of the position of celestial bodies. But God is constant in everything he does for man. As Timothy B. Cargal rightly observes, the aim here is not a systematic ontological reflection but showing the relationality,

9 Differently H. Krabbendam, The Epistle of James, p. 317.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

103

104

The Structural Commentary

characteristic of OT and NT theology, expressed in God’s will to provide man with “every perfect gift” (James 1:17a).10 Consistency and integrity of God is presented on two levels. The first one, as has been said, is the level of relation, in which man is the point of reference. The second level is the one associated with the story of salvation and it is shown in a chronological order from (the first) creation (v. 17) to the end times and (the new) creation (v. 18). Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that this is a reflection on the gift of wisdom coming from above – thus, in James 1:17 there appears the same term which can be found in the index 3:17 – ἄνωθέν. Now it is specified – “from above” means God, called here “the Father of lights” πατὴρ τῶν φώτων. The context of wisdom as a gift is indicated by two synonymous terms used in v. 17: “act of giving” δόσις and “gift” δώρημα. The first one focuses on the act of giving itself (the way in which God offers his gift); the second one on the person of the donator (on what God is like). This corresponds to the idea expressed in James 1:5: “God […] gives to all generously/sincerely/equally and ungrudgingly”, and in James 1:7–8 “the gift comes from God, who in his decisions is unchangeable and integrated, different from man who succumbs to doubts”. While the theological ruminations in James 1:7–8 and 16 are dominated by the negative aspect (God is not like a hesitant man, do not be deceived!), which is a kind of an apophatic method, then in v. 17a the narrator moves on to positive aspects. He announces them with the adjectives “good” ἀγαθή, and “perfect” τέλειον, which formally refer to giving and the gift, but in the whole context built by calling God “the Father of lights”, they first of all bring to mind the act of creation, its evaluation and approval (Gen 1:3–4.14–18 εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ὅτι καλόν, although instead of ambiguous καλόν more ethically oriented ἀγαθή has been used here; cf. Ps 8:4, 136[135]:7–9). In this way, the chronological, historical level is initiated. The narrator of James uses here imagery typical of sapiential literature – of God as the creator of lights and time (e.g. Wis 7:18–19, Sir 33:8–9, 43:5–10, cf. TAb 7:6.13). He is also faithful to antithetical binarity, characteristic of this literature. After the presentation of positive aspects, he comes back to the apophatic method used earlier to differentiate the Creator from his creation and to strongly emphasise God’s unchangeability (another element indicating constancy and continuity is the use of the present tense: ἐστιν καταβαῖνον, οὐκ ἔνι). God who created (good) lights is not similar to them, in him there is neither “variation” παραλλαγὴ nor “shadow due to solstice” τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα. Expressions employed here have been derived from the language of astronomy and on the one hand describe changes in

10 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 86.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom comes from above (James 1:5–8.16–18)

the position of celestial bodies11 and – therefore – the passing of time; on the other hand, they point out the instability, fickleness and unreliability of pagan deities.12 Line 18 represents the third, final and climactic point of the theological reflection of the narrator of James. On the one hand, the historical level is continued here; on the other hand, the relational level and its soteriological orientation is very strongly accentuated.13 After the description of the creation of lights, the recipient might expect a continuation of the ktiseological narrative, or at least a remark about man – the crown of creation. The narrator of James seems to come up to these expectations but he does it in an astonishing way. Speaking about a man, he does not use the expected verb ‘to create’ ποιέω (like in Gen 1:27: καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον), but the verb ἀποκυέω denoting giving birth as an activity typical of women (cf. 4 Macc 15:17) In sapiential context, and in combination with the picture of God as the Father in v. 16, this might indicate fullness – God is at the same time the Father and the one giving birth (the Mother). Much more perceptible here is the soteriological aspect of the verb ἀποκυέω, confirmed by the participle βουληθεὶς denoting God’s free and unchangeable will, and the phrase “the word of truth” λόγος ἀληθείας. The verb βουλομαι in part. aor. points at a single, nonrecurring act of God’s will, God’s decision taken in the past, which has already come true (the verb ἀποκυέω has been used in aorist, too – ἀπεκύησεν). Natural ktiseological associations are evoked here – the decision in Gen 1:26: “Let us make humankind” ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον, but the associations are extended to the whole history of salvation and its scheme: God’s promise/decision and its fulfilment, which emphasises the aspect of constancy of God’s will. The scheme has already been partly drawn in James 1:5–6a: if a man asks for wisdom in faith – it will be given (the positive aspect) and in James 1:6b-7: if the one who doubts asks for wisdom – he must not expect to receive anything from the Lord (a negative aspect). It is additionally underscored by God’s integrity in speech (the promise) and in action (the fulfilment), expressed with the adverb ἁπλῶς. In James 1:18 God’s saving will/decision/promise is fulfilled by giving birth to humankind with the word of truth. The juxtaposition of God’s will, giving birth and the word of truth resembles the language of Christian initiation (cf. e.g. John 1:12–13, 3:3–4, 1 John 3:9 and 1 Pet 1:3.23 similar to James in terms of the literary convention although ‘giving birth’ is expressed here with the verb γεννάω referring rather to begetting or ‘fathering’ – an activity whose agent is primarily the father), but it is clearly linked to the first creation of man with the power of God’s word. This association with the story of the beginning of 11 D.H. Edgar, Has God not Chosen, p. 154. 12 See above – chap. 1.4. 13 Some commentators claim that James 1:18 both concludes the whole section 1:2–18 and serves as a transition between the fragment describing trials and difficulties and the section devoted to putting words into practice; see e.g. H. Krabbendam, The Epistle of James, p. 384–386 and the footnotes.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

105

106

The Structural Commentary

the world allows for general identification of ‘the word of truth’ with the broadly understood organising word of God (2 Sam 7:28, Ps 33[32]:6, 107[106]:20, particularly in sapiential literature Wis 18:15, Sir 43:26) rather than with the Gospel14 or with baptism.15 Such generality, a broad semantic field and ambiguity is one of the favourite methods of the narrator of the Letter of James, which could be seen in the analysis of the introductory phrases of the prescript,16 or in the references to wisdom and faith. The relational level is clearly revealed here: birth out of the will/decision of God thanks to “the word of truth” means in fact a new relation with God based on the Divine sonship (John 1:12–13 cf. the children of the promise in Rom 9:8). The author of James does not finish his deliberations here but he unexpectedly introduces a very strong eschatological aspect (on the historical level) and a soteriological aspect (on the relational level) comparing man born of God’s will and thanks to “the word of truth” to “first fruits of his creatures” ἀπαρχὴ τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων. The power of this emphasis lies not only in the content of the final phrase but also – and maybe above all – on the reversal of the order of (the first) creation. At that time, man was the crown of it; now he is/will be the beginning of (the new) creation.17 The noun ἀπαρχή fits perfectly well in James’ strategy of combining different temporal and intertextual aspects. The “first fruits” primarily connote with sacrifice and offering to God what is the best among the first yields, foods, livestock and with offering firstborn sons (Exod 13:2.12.15, 22:28, 23:19, Lev 2:12, Num 15:20–21, Deut 18:4, 26:2.10), it refers to the history and customs of Israel, and to the Torah. What seems to be of primary importance to the narrator, however, are not references to history and customs but symbolic connotations, emphasised by adding the indefinite pronoun τι to the noun ἀπαρχή (‘a kind of first fruits’ or ‘some first fruits’). The symbol implies a total devotion to God and the status of God’s property. Ἀπαρχή thus describes a community (a characteristic personal pronoun “we” ἡμεῖς) entirely devoted to God, which becomes his property through birth and thanks to “the word of truth”. The birth out of God’s will and through “the word of truth”

14 Most commentators seem to look at the word of truth as the synonym of the Gospel, juxtaposing James with Corpus Paulinum (e.g. 2 Cor 6:7, Eph 1:13, Col 1:5, 2 Tim 2:15); see L.L. Cheung, The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of the Epistle of James, Carlisle 2003, p. 87, T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 86 and the footnotes. The word of truth can also be interpreted as the Law, as in Ps 119:43 and in the Testament of Gad 3:1, which would correspond with the sapiential tradition much better than the Gospel and baptism; see S. Laws, Commentary, p. 76, or even as wisdom itself; see T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 86. 15 See J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 100–101, 103. 16 See above – chap. 1.6. 17 Cf. Another interpretation of this reversal in S. Laws, Commentary, p. 75.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom comes from above (James 1:5–8.16–18)

in turn changes the first fruits here into the synonym for perfection and holiness or sanctification. In this way, the whole phrase acquires soteriological character, especially when it is combined with eschatological symbolism. The eschatological aspect is elicited by agrarian associations linked to “the first fruits”, in particular the image of harvest used to depict eschatological judgement (cf. James 5:7–9). As the result of the judgement, all God’s creation – κτίσμα James 1:18: “his creatures” will be renewed (sanctified) in the same way in which “the first fruit” was sanctified (cf. e.g. Rev 5:13). In the primacy of humankind over the new creation, in that characteristic eschatological inversion, there are clear associations – also on the lexical and phraseological level – not only with sapiential literature but also with the function of wisdom, God’s gift, in the process of renewal and sanctification of creation (cf. especially Wis 9:2–4): “O God […] who by your wisdom have formed humankind to have dominion over the creatures you have made, and rule the world in holiness and righteousness, and pronounce judgment in uprightness of soul, give me the wisdom that sits by your throne.”

It can now be clearly seen that v. 18 in combination with v. 5 constitute an inclusion of theological deliberations of the narrator of James. In the final line there also converge the historical and relational levels for which man is a reference point. This can be seen as the introduction to the description of other attributes of wisdom that become manifest above all in interpersonal relations. The historical/chronological level: The Past (first) creation – the creation of lights – James 1:17.

The Present Man as the crown of (the first) creation – James 1:18. Man as the first fruit of (the new) creation – James 1:18.

The Future (end times) (The new) creation – James 1:18.

The relational level with a clear soteriological orientation: Promise God’s unchangeable decision in the past – James 1:18a.

Fulfilment in the present time Birth through the word of truth (Man as God’s child) – James 1:18b.

Fulfilment in the future Judgement and final salvation/sanctification – James 1:18c.

As the above analysis shows, James 1:5–8 and 16–18 create a thematically coherent whole, since both of them refer to wisdom as God’s gift that one should ask for. Attention ought to be paid to the inclusive composition of the whole passage: v. 5,

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

107

108

The Structural Commentary

where the request for wisdom is exposed, and v. 18 which is an obvious reference to the Book of Wisdom imply the use of king Solomon’s topos. The inclusion also applies to theological content. The initial verse focuses on God and his way of offering the gift of wisdom (generously/sincerely/equally and without resentment/ ungrudgingly), which should be a model to follow for a believer. The final line develops this idea in a soteriological and eschatological direction: a believer, who successfully asks for the gift of wisdom and who receives it thanks to God’s unchangeable will and promise, becomes similar to God firstly because, by being born through the word of truth, he has become God’s child and God’s property, and secondly, because in the end times he will be ultimately sanctified. This framework is filled up with anthropological and theological reflection: God, contrary to man who succumbs to doubts, who is unstable, infirm of purpose, and double-minded, is integrated, constant and unchangeable; he creates the world and rules it, and he implements the saving resolutions resulting from his will. Stressing the constancy and integrity of God, the author introduces his recipients to the main topic of the epistle – the integrity and cohesion of the internal and external aspects of the life of a believer, that have its source and model in God and can only be preserved thanks to the wisdom he offers.

2.2

Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27)

1:12

Blessed is anyone who endures trials/test/luring/temptation, since one that has been tried/tested will receive the wreath/crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. 13 No one, when tempted/being tested, should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. 14 But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; 15 then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death. 21a Thus get rid of any filth/impurity and excessive anger/wickedness. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering/distress, and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world.

The description of the second feature of wisdom – purity – structurally resembles the previous presentation of wisdom coming from God. Pure love is, in very general terms, a measure that helps man to resist temptations stemming from his own lasciviousness and to put the commandment to love God and one’s neighbours into practice. To communicate this idea, the sender of the Letter of James again makes use of inclusion, binary oppositions as well as references to biblical ktiseology and to the tri-partite division of history. Typically, he employs images and associations that

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27)

combine elements of the past and the future, and references to sapiential literature and to the Torah. The manner in which pure wisdom should be understood is shown by means of examples – the conduct of a man who, as the previous fragment has demonstrated (James 1:5–8.16–18), asks God for wisdom in faith and receives it, and the one who is unstable, doubtful and has not obtained any gift from God. As before, the contrasted elements encompass not only the affirmed and the negated human conduct but also a false vision of God created by means of an analogy to human behaviour and pagan beliefs and a true vision built on the basis of God’s words and actions written down in the Bible used by the author of the Letter of James, that is in the LXX. Nevertheless, theological motifs have been reduced in favour of anthropological and hamartiological aspects. Some commentators treat James 1:12 as the summary of James 1:2–11. However, when the text is organised according to the catalogue of features and attributes of wisdom, the line becomes an initial sentence of the reflection upon purity as the derivative of wisdom. The narrator approaches the task in his own particular way, referring to the non-linear structure of the whole epistle and eliciting associations which are not very obvious (1:12–15); then, in the climactic moment, he formulates a thesis (1:21a.27a), develops it and sums it up (1:27b–c). The meditation upon purity starts with a blessing which, in terms of form and content, on the one hand refers to Old Testament tradition (James uses here the style of the LXX),18 but on the other hand he seems to be referring to the tradition Jesus. Henry Krabbendam calls James’ beatitude ‘a blueprint of victory’,19 juxtaposing it, inter alia, with Dan 12:12, 4 Macc 7:22 (as well as with Mark 13:13 and Rev 2:2–10), where a similar idea of a blessing for the one who perseveres can be found. The difference is that the enumerated texts refer explicitly to enduring hardships, and there is no such a suggestion in James 1:1220 , although most commentators connect the noun πειρασμός (“trial/test/luring/temptation”) and the adjective δόκιμος (“tried/tested”) used here to the trials described in James 1:2–4, assuming that the experience is negative.21 Jesus’ beatitudes undoubtedly allude to ‘the victory plan’, too. There are two elements that link them to James’ blessing – inversion and an eschatological orientation: those to whom great things are promised in the time to come (eschatology) now have to endure what is exactly the opposite (inversion) – cf. Matt 5:4.6.10–12. It seems that for James the model beatitude will be the blessing of the ‫ ַאְשׁ ֵרי‬type, characteristic of sapiential literature and based on obedience to the Law, trust in 18 James uses here an adjective combined with a noun μακάριος ἀνήρ like in Ps 1:1, Prov 8:34, Job 5:17, Sir 14:1, and not just an adjective like in the NT – Matt 5:3, John 20:29, Rev 1:3. 19 H. Krabbendam, The Epistle of James, p. 284. 20 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 66. 21 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

109

110

The Structural Commentary

God, fear of God and wisdom (cf. Prov 14:21, 16:20, 28:14, 29:18, Sir 14:1–4.20–21, 37:24).22 Such a blessing is rooted in the convention of the covenant, so it brings a very clear message: obedience (to the covenant) generates a blessing; disobedience results in a curse, what is demonstrated in a very detailed and complex way by the text coming from Deut 2823 (cf. also Deut 30:15–20) where the first part is devoted to enumeration of the symptoms of being blessed (Deut 28:1–14), and the second part – to the symptoms of being cursed (Deut 28:15–17). Although, when compared to Deut, James 1:12 seems to be an elliptic form limited only to the description of the blessing, dominating in sapiential literature, in fact it also contains an element of a curse, visible in vv. 13–15.24 In the affirmative part of the blessing, v. 12 epitomises the story of salvation; it refers to the previous meditation upon wisdom coming from above/from God, but its tri-partite division also organises the structure of the whole passage devoted to pure wisdom: The past God’s promise – James 1:12e.

The present – Resisting temptation – James 1:12b; – Being tried – James 1:12c; – Loving God – James 1:12f.

The future Receiving the wreath/crown of life – James 1:12d.

The three stages are emphasised by the use of grammatical forms. The promise (ἐπηγγείλατο) is expressed with ind. aor. pass. (passivum theologicum), what again accentuates the singleness of this act and unchangeability of God’s resolutions. Enduring ordeals ὑπομένει mentioned in ind. praes. act. signifies not only the present need to overcome temptation but also (continual) recurrence of this act extending over the whole human life.25 Since the verb ὑπομένει signifies not only

22 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, vol. 1, Grand Rapids 1997, p. 445–447; cf. The Westminster Dictionary of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric, ed. D.E. Aune, Louiseville–London 2003, p. 75. 23 Cf. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 105–106. 24 See below. 25 Such constant exposition to temptation is described by M. Luther in the Large Catechism, in the explanation of the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer: “[…] although we have acquired forgiveness and a good conscience, and have been wholly absolved, yet such is life that one stands today and falls tomorrow. Therefore, even though at present we are upright and stand before God with a good conscience, we must pray again that he will not allow us to fall and yield to trials and temptations. These are the great, grievous perils and temptations which every Christian must bear […]. As long as we remain in this vile life in which we are attacked, hunted, and harried on all sides, we are constrained

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27)

surviving but also sustaining and/or strengthening (and in the Jewish tradition God is the source of strength, hope and sustainability – cf. Ps 18[17]:3, 31[30]:2–4, 39[38]:8, 71[70]:5.7),26 it can be translated more broadly to enhance the theological and the anthropological aspects: “Blessed is anyone who, strengthened by God, overcomes temptation”. Such broader understanding of the human need to resist temptation with God’s support is remarkably evidenced by the sixth petition of The Lord’s Prayer: “And lead us not into temptation”: καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν (Matt 6:13). In the same way as resisting temptation, also the love of God should extend over the whole human life (the form used here is part. praes. act. pl. τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν). The effect of overcoming seduction is reaching the ultimate state of being tried/fully experienced (here without any metaphorical connotations), which is in turn indicated by part. aor. δόκιμος γενόμενος. The singleness and nonrecurrence of the phrase δόκιμος γενόμενος shows that it most probably refers to the moment of passing from the present life to eternal life, to death as a demarcation point, and to receiving the crown of life, which is again indicated by the use of ind. fut. act. – λήμψεται. Many elements of the affirmative part of the blessing remain deliberately understated or ambiguous. Here we can enumerate phrases like “the crown of life” or “those who love him [God]” as well as the way in which the promise or the ‘temptation’/‘test’ can be understood (the last concept will be more extensively discussed in combination with vv. 13 and 14). The expression στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς can be approached in several ways. The term στέφανος refers both to the Greek tradition and to the Jewish sapiential and apocalyptic tradition. It first of all brings to mind a wreath made of laurel leaves and olive branches that was awarded to winners of sports competitions and to war heroes. It can also signify a gold crown, a diadem which adorned the heads of outstanding military leaders, rulers or celebrities. Sapiential tradition combines these two images: “She will place on your head a fair garland; she will bestow on you a beautiful crown” (ἵνα δῷ τῇ σῇ κεφαλῇ στέφανον χαρίτων στεφάνῳ δὲ τρυφῆς to cry out and pray every hour that God may not allow us to become faint and weary and to fall back into sin, shame, and unbelief. Otherwise it is impossible to overcome even the least temptation. This, then, is ‘leading us not into temptation’ when God gives us power and strength to resist, even though the tribulation is not removed or ended. For no one can escape temptations and allurements as long as we live in the flesh […] We cannot help but suffer tribulations, and even be entangled in them, but we pray here that we may not fall into them and be overwhelmed by them. To feel temptation, therefore, is quite a different thing from consenting and yielding to it. […] Accordingly we Christians must be armed and prepared for incessant attacks […]” M. Luther, the Large Catechism, http:// storage.cloversites.com/redhilllutheranchurch/documents/LARGE_CATECHISM.pdf [accessed: 20.07.2019]. 26 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 109.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

111

112

The Structural Commentary

ὑπερασπίσῃ σου). It is not a coincidence that in the quote from Prov 4:9 honouring with the wreath/crown is linked to obtaining wisdom. In Sir 6:31 wisdom itself is compared to a wreath (similarly, in Sir 1:11 where the fear of God is seen as the synonym or the first stage of wisdom). In the context of the Letter of James this would mean that, drawing upon the sapiential tradition, the affirmative part of the blessing might be summarised in the following way: “Happy [blessed] is the one who – asking God for help – overcomes temptation and obtains wisdom by virtue of God’s promise”. Clear parallels can be seen here with the previous deliberations concerning the origin of wisdom:

v. 5 Request for wisdom. v. 12 Overcoming temptation with God’s assistance.

A promise to obtain A gift of wisdom for wisdom. everyone asking with faith. A promise (not specified). A gift – a crown/wreath – identified with wisdom itself.

The fact of identifying the “wreath/crown” as “the crown of life” στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς might pose a certain problem. Most commentators treat the genetivus modifying the “wreath/crown” as genetivus epexegeticus (defining). Then the whole expression could simply be identified with life. This idea is compatible both with James’ description of wisdom and with the sapiential tradition (cf. “wisdom bringing life” in the charts comparing the message of James with that of wisdom books). The narrator of James does not specify what kind of life he means and whether the phrase refers to this life or to the life to come. On the one hand, the context of the ‘model’ blessing from Deut 28:1–14 and also from Deut 30:15–16.19b–20, concordant with the wisdom tradition, evokes associations with long and happy life on earth. On the other hand, however, and on the basis of similarities with meditation in James 1:5–8.16–18, which is eschatologically and soteriologically oriented, it might be assumed that this reflection has a similar orientation and it concerns eternal life. An additional confirmation will certainly be eschatological elements present in sapiential literature, the already mentioned eschatology in the other beatitudes of Jesus and allusions in the Letter of James itself, although – as usual – they are not precise and allow for very broad interpretation. The fact that the expression might refer to eternal life may also be deduced from James 2:5, where a similar phrase can be found – the promise of kingdom (without further specification) for those who love God. In this context στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς would be first of all associated with a crown, a diadem (τὸ διάδημα) denoting royalty, like in Wis 5:16: “Therefore they will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord” (cf. also TLevi 8:2, where the wreath/crown is described as “the crown of righteousness”, and TBenj 4:1, where “crowns of glory” are mentioned). Eschatological and apocalyptic connotations may

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27)

also be indicated by the image of a (golden) wreath and the expression “the crown of life” στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς in the Book of Revelation (2:10, 3:11, 4:4.10, 14:14). Sophie Laws provides an interesting suggestion concerning the idea of eternal life implicit in the expression “the crown of life”. The author reaches for the image of a wreath made of branches of laurel and olive trees which, under natural conditions, is perishable, quickly wilts and withers (this vision also appears in James 1:9–11). In contrast to a natural wreath, “the crown of life” would be something durable, eternally alive, the symbol of eternal life.27 Eschatological and soteriological determinants of “the crown of life” seem to be confirmed by further words: ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν “[the crown] the Lord has promised to those who love him”. It might seem at first sight that the notion of the promise is not very clear here, either, but when we take into account the already mentioned theological ruminations contained in 1:5–8 and 16–18, it might be assumed that this general statement comprises promises referring to wisdom (v. 5) and everything that brings about wisdom as well as promises of salvation (v. 18), which encompass both the present time and the future, in the same way as James’ blessing does. Rooted in history but referring to the present and the future is also the expression “those who love him” (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν), in particular when the pronoun αὐτόν is treated as the equivalent of God.28 In biblical literature the phrase “those who love God” is usually accompanied by the addition “and keep his commandments” (Exod 20:6, Deut 5:10, 7:9, Dan 9:4). The love of God first of all brings to mind the first commandment of love (Deut 6:5). Thus, the phrase “those who love God” encompasses all those who followed the Law in the past and are doing it now. This addition is often missing in sapiential literature (cf. Sir 1:10), but, instead, another eschatological phrase appears, namely, entrusting “those who love God” to Divine mercy and reassurance that they are not going to be condemned, which might be associated with the Final Judgement (as e.g. in PssSol 4:25, 6:6, 10:3, TSim. 3:6). An alternative translation of the phrase ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν is also possible where the subject/donator of the promise is God, but the pronoun αὐτόν (acc. sg. masc.) refers to the noun στέφανος (masc.). If, as has been suggested before, “the crown of life” is treated as a synonym of wisdom, then the promise would pertain to those who love wisdom. But the idea does not differ in any remarkable way from the one demonstrated above. Since wisdom comes from God and is his gift, then the love of wisdom, understood also as obedience to the Law, may metonymically mean the love of God as its donor, too.

27 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 67. 28 Suggestions that it refers to God/the Lord are justified when the variants ἐπηγγείλατο κύριος, ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ κύριος or ἐπηγγείλατο θεός are adopted.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

113

114

The Structural Commentary

It seems that the narrator of James deliberately leaves the possibility of diverse interpretation of expressions and images employed in the text. This is in line with the generic convention chosen by him, that is the circular letter to the diaspora, as well as with the intention to reach a wide audience who could find in the general, unspecified and ambiguous elements ideas matching their situation, their theological awareness and competence without the necessity to limit the message to one interpretation. To sum up the first, affirmative part of the blessing, we can say that in terms of structure and content it is closely linked to meditation upon the origin of wisdom. Here, the anthropological theme is mainly developed: the person who has previously been depicted as the one asking for wisdom with faith and receiving it is now described with the word “blessed”, somebody who seeks “beatitude/happiness” in God29 and his promises rooted in the past and extended to the present time and to the future. The blessing, which may be associated with the gift of wisdom, requires correct demeanour of the beneficiary: perpetual, ceaseless fight against temptation that is not possible without God’s assistance on daily basis (hence references to the Lord’s Prayer), and the love of God understood as keeping the commandments (in particular the first commandment of love). In compliance with the rule of binary oppositions characteristic of sapiential literature, and here additionally in the context of a beatitude including a blessing and a curse, v. 13 contrasts the behaviour of someone endowed with wisdom, a happy and blessed person who throughout his life resists temptation, with someone who does not try to overcome temptation but accuses God of being led into it. The curse is thus directly linked to the blasphemous statement: “I am being tempted by God” ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι. The full version of the reconstructed blessing could then be: “Blessed is anyone who endures temptation, because such a one who has been tried/tested will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. Cursed is the man who, when tempted, says, ‘I am being tempted by God’ [as he commits blasphemy]; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. [Cursed is the man who, committing the sin of blasphemy, turns his back on God. He will die]” (The last part of the beatitude has been reconstructed also with regard to v. 15). The following chart shows the structure of the blessing even more clearly:

29 H. Krabbendam, The Epistle of James, p. 284; S. Laws, Commentary, p. 68; J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 88.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27)

Someone enduring temptation (endowed with wisdom)

Someone giving in to temptation (devoid of wisdom)

– Blessed/happy (v. 12a); – Accursed (ellipsis); – Loving God = keeping the first – Accusing God = blasphemy and commandment of love (v. 12c); violating the first commandment of – Will be rewarded with life (v. 12b). love (v. 13); – Will die because of the sin (v. 15). The element which confirms the coherence of lines 12 and 13 is not only the reference to a classical blessing but also the same semantic field of the noun πειρασμός (v. 12), derived from the verb πειράζω (v. 13). When the Letter of James is read in a linear way, the suggestion might be that πειρασμός in v. 12 refers to the earlier incentive to rejoice in hardships and trials (James 1:2–3) so the noun should be also here translated as ‘a trial’. It seems, however, that the meaning of the verb πειράζω in v. 13 suggests how its derivative πειρασμός in the previous line should be understood, and this is of course the basic meaning of the lexeme – temptation.30 Happy, blessed is thus the one who constantly overcomes temptations. Such a man can be called ‘tried’ at the end of his life. As usual, the narrator does not specify at the beginning what he means here by πειρασμός. He does it only in verse 14 where the noun ἐπιθυμία ‘lust’ appears. So it seems that v. 12 is about resisting temptation understood as one’s own desires; hence the meaningful combination of the term ἐπιθυμία with the pronoun ἰδία. There are people who see the source of temptation not within themselves but outside, in God, what – as has already been said – is considered by the narrator of James as a blasphemy that results in a curse. This might be the sign of influence of pagan religions and the narrator discusses such views in the same way as he discussed the changeability of pagan deities in 1:18. This seems quite probable, particularly because a logical train of thought can be spotted here: changeable pagan deities succumb to temptation (by other deities) and tempt men. Unchangeable God, constant in his decisions, is not subject to temptation – he is a ἀπειραστός and does not tempt anyone πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα. This idea overlaps with demonisation of pagan deities, typical of the LXX, and, in consequence – seeing temptation as the work of demons and/or Satan (cf. Job 1:9–12, 2:6, 2 Chron 21:1 and 2 Sam 24:1, as well as the role of prince Mastema in the story of Abraham from the Book of Jubilees 17:15–18, comparable to Job). The point is not, however, focusing on particular arguments but strong opposition against the false view that temptation has its source outside man. The narrator of James most probably sees in the Greek term ἐπιθυμία

30 Cf. e.g. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 69; T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 79–80 who claim that the change of meaning of the lexeme πειράζω occurs between v. 12 and v. 13.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

115

116

The Structural Commentary

the equivalent of the Hebrew word ‫ ֵיֶצר‬which means at the same time shaping or forming and desires or inner drives. Greed is thus an intrinsic characteristic of man,31 and being led by it is the real source of temptation, what is underlined by Sir 15:14, similar here to the author of James: “He himself made human beings in the beginning, and then left them free to make their own decisions” (αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ). What immediately comes to mind are associations with the story of creation and the situation in paradise. In this way the narrator of James continues the ktiseological reflection started when the origin of wisdom has been discussed (1:17–18). Accusing God of temptation takes us back to the story of the beginnings, when man, giving in to his desires, trespassed against God but he did not acknowledge his fault, putting the blame on the woman who in turn accused the snake (Gen 3:12–13).32 Explaining why God cannot be seen as the source of temptation, the author of James makes use of apophatic theology, as in 1:7–8.16, he claims that God cannot be tempted and does not tempt anybody (v. 13). The adjective ἀπειραστός is employed here, which does not have its equivalent in Greek biblical or extrabiblical literature and, consequently, its meaning is not clear,33 although it can be easily derived from the verb πειράζω. Most generally, it could mean ‘without temptation’ and the author of James would probably prefer to retain the impreciseness of the statement, leaving interpretation to the recipients’ competence and theological intuition. He does not determine, either, how the word κακῶν in genetivus pluralis should be understood:34 passively (‘God is without temptation by evil’ = ‘God cannot be tried by evil’ = ‘evil cannot tempt God’), or maybe actively (‘God is without temptation by evil’ = ‘he cannot do/inflict evil’). If we take into consideration the opposition typical of James – here it is the evident contrast between a man who can ‘be tempted’ (v. 13a), and God who “cannot be tempted/is not subject to temptation”– the passive variant seems to be more probable, all the more that the active aspect would overlap with the statement that “he himself tempts no one” (v. 13c). Nevertheless, it is very likely that the neologism ἀπειραστός comprises both variants, and the basic meaning of the theological argumentation is as follows: God cannot be seen as the source of temptation because in every aspect temptation is foreign to his nature. It might seem that the theological message should be limited to this, but its further part can be sought also in v. 15: since temptation understood as greed is an incentive to sin, and God is without sin, then he is not subject to desire or temptation. It is not a coincidence that in previous theological deliberations in v. 18 God’s will/

31 32 33 34

T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 81. Cf. P.H. Davids, James, p. 392. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 70. Cf. ibid., p. 71.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27)

decision has been described as neutral βούλομαι, and not as the theology-laden lust/desire/inner drive ἐπιθυμία. Further meditation upon desire (v. 14b) is based both on sapiential references and on associations with Greek literature. Describing the mechanism of ‘lust’/‘desire’, the narrator reaches for personification, too. Man is ‘pulled out’ ἐξελκόμενος by lust and ‘lured’/‘fished with a lure’ δελεαζόμενος. Both verbs immediately bring to mind an image known from Greek literature – fishing (or catching crocodiles), although their order may raise certain doubts: man, like fish, is pulled out and caught with a lure. As it is obvious that a fish pulled out of water cannot survive, the image involves the vision of death; the narrator with this set of phrases predicts that the actions will lead the object of temptation (man) to dying. The metaphor of fishing is combined with an image alluding to Prov 7 of an adulteress who pulls a young man away from the path of justice and seduces him. This activity might also evoke the vision of death since a youth yielding to an adulterous woman “goes like an ox to the slaughter” (Prov 7:22), “is like a bird rushing into a snare, not knowing that it will cost him his life” (Prov 7:23). A similar idea appears in Prov 5:3–5, while PssSol 16:7 expresses a dramatic call where the meaning of the juxtaposition of evil, sin, an evil woman and the fall is no longer metaphorical: “Guard me, o God, from evil sin and from every evil woman who makes the foolish to stumble”35 . Hamartiological reflection in v. 15 develops in a similar direction. The association with an adulteress entails using vocabulary related to sexuality and a reproductive cycle in v. 15, and to chastity or, more precisely, the lack of it. In the background, allusions to the story of the fall of man can be tracked down as the sequence of acts suggested in v. 15 reflects the sequence in Gen 3:6.19: succumbing to desire – sin (violating God’s commandment) – death. Now the opposition to v. 12 can clearly be noticed, and it overlaps to a large extent with the already mentioned juxtaposition of the affirmative (blessing) and negative (curse) part of the beatitude: v. 12 overcoming temptation/greed (acting with God’s help) keeping the commandments (love of God) life (the crown of life)

→ → → →

v. 15 succumbing to temptation/greed (acting without God) violating the commandments (connotations with paradise) death

On the basis of these parallels one might infer that death depicted as a child of sin is a notion of the same kind as life in v. 12. The narrator does not make it clear if

35 Psalms of Solomon, http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/psalms-of-solomon/16.html [accessed: 24.07.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

117

118

The Structural Commentary

he means physical death or eternal death and allows the recipients to follow both interpretations, adding to them ontic meaning, too: since the time of the fall in paradise, giving in to temptation and to sin as well as dying have been inscribed in human nature and man alone cannot liberate himself from their oppression. What draws attention in v. 15 is the animalisation/personification of not only desire but also sin which is shown as a conceived and growing child. When the sin matures, it becomes a parent (a mother, as the verb ἀποκυέω suggests) of death. The narrator of James might wish to signal in this way that the awareness of the existence of a sin does not lead to death; it is nurturing the sinful state – allowing the sin to grow – that gives birth to death. Associations with paradise are triggered again: man in the garden of Eden may have been aware that it was possible to violate God’s prohibition, he may have even desired the fruit which was “good for food, and […] it was a delight to the eyes, and […] the tree was to be desired to make one wise” καλὸν τὸ ξύλον εἰς βρῶσιν καὶ ὅτι ἀρεστὸν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἰδεῖν καὶ ὡραῖόν ἐστιν τοῦ κατανοῆσαι (Gen 2:8–9.16, 3:6a); but it was only the active fulfilment of the desire, which in James is described as the maturity of the sin, that led the first humans to death. Due to the depiction of a sexual act and the reproductive cycle in v. 15, there appears one more theology-laden element – and this is the message that sin and death have not been created by God. The adultery described here suggests that a sin, conceived out of human lust, and then death, to which sin gives birth, are not God’s works (children), but bastards,36 what can be easily seen when we juxtapose the description of the birth from/by God (the children of God) with James 1:1837 and the birth of out sin indicated with the same verb ἀποκυέω.38 Summing up this part of the reflection, we should once again emphasise the oppositional combination of vv. 12 and 14–15 into a characteristic pattern a blessing–a curse, that harks back to Deut 28 and 30:15–20. A man who loves God and who, with God’s help, overcomes temptation, will receive, on account of God’s promise, the crown of life (life); a man who gives in to temptation defined as desire, having a guilty conscience, blaming God and other people for his sin and allowing the sin to grow and mature, will be sentenced to death. Even though the narrator of James does not explicitly state if life and death should be understood in the earthly or in the eternal sense, if we take into consideration the eschatological orientation of the whole Letter of James as well as the beatitude and the recurring pattern: the past – the present – the future, it seems very probable that eternal life and eternal death are at stake here, postponed until the judgement, in the same way as physical death

36 Such a strong word is used, inter alia, by T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 82. 37 See above. 38 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 71.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27)

was postponed in paradise. In the context of features and attributes of wisdom, the description included in the first part of the beatitude refers to the situation of a person endowed with wisdom, and the second description (the curse) – to the state of a man devoid of the gift of wisdom; thus, what is revealed here is a reflection upon wisdom not only from an eschatological but also from a soteriological point of view. As has been stated in the introduction to this analysis, the suggestions and deliberations included in James 12–15 lead to the formulation of a theory on the purity of wisdom in vv. 21a and 27. However, before defining what purity actually is (v. 27), the narrator resorts to negative statements in the same way as he did in vv. 1:6–8.16. He calls to get rid of “any filth/impurity” ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν and “excessive anger/wickedness” καὶ περισσείαν κακίας. This means that purity should be understood as the opposite of “filth/impurity” and “wickedness”. Referring to hamartiology in vv. 13–15 might also help to define more precisely the meaning of these notions. The linking element between the previous considerations and v. 21 is undoubtedly the verb ἀποτίθημι, which means taking off and putting aside clothes. In combination with the lexis alluding to seduction, adultery and procreation in vv. 14b–15, it might mean that “filth/impurity” ῥυπαρία (denoting both physical dirt and moral filth, vulgarity) indicates here impurity of sexual nature – adultery or wantonness. Still, the use of the pronoun πᾶσα modifying this noun suggests that it should be understood more broadly, not excluding, however, the sexual connotations. The function of the expression “excessive anger/wickedness”, which complements the phrase “any filth/impurity”, is similar. In the context of lines 12–15 and the reflection on temptation and desire, “filth/impurity” and “anger/wickedness” can be considered as their synonyms. Getting rid of “any filth/impurity and excessive anger/wickedness” would thus mean self-restraint – overcoming temptation and not succumbing to lust. The narrator of James is aware that, at least at present, full restraint is not possible, and he expresses this belief through the use of a limiting term “excessive” περισσεία in contrast to the adjective πᾶσα ‘all’. Still, it might be assumed that for the narrator of James pure wisdom is synonymous with restraint. But this does not exhaust the understanding of purity. What should be added is the attitude to blasphemy in v. 13, which is also the result of unchaste, sordid thoughts and accusations brought against God as well as “wickedness” and exasperation, mainly with oneself, at the failure to overcome temptation on one’s own. Such thinking should be rejected in the same way in which dirty clothes are taken off and thrown away (once again we can observe coherence and appropriateness of using the verb ἀποτίθημι). Rejection of false and blasphemous thinking helps man to discover truth about himself and his covetous nature. In this context, pure wisdom consists in acknowledging one’s own sinfulness and day-to-day struggle to resist temptation, without bringing accusations against God. In other words, it

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

119

120

The Structural Commentary

can be called pure love of God which reveals itself in faithful observance of the first commandment of love and should also be reflected in keeping the second commandment of love, what is emphasised in v. 27. As has already been mentioned, the formulation of the thesis concerning the nature of pure wisdom is later developed and summed up. The phrase “religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father” θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ on the one hand directly expresses the idea of pure religiousness and concludes the previous reflection upon the first commandment of love and truth about man, and on the other hand, it is an introduction to extending these notions to the second commandment of love, that is obligations to one’s neighbours. The term θρησκεία, coming from the sphere of religion and pagan worship, can be regarded here, at least partly, as the synonym of wisdom, because it overlaps with the way in which wisdom has been described above: pure and undefiled religiosity/wisdom is devoid of the blasphemous element (v. 13) and a false concept of human nature (v. 12.14–15). The terms καθαρά and ἀμίαντος which in a way are antonymous to ῥυπαρία and κακία, hark back to the previous deliberations, particularly those included in v. 21a. The adjective ἀμίαντος which refers to sexuality, virginity, and marital love can also be treated as the opposite of impurity or adultery described in v. 15. The adjective καθαρὰ in turn first of all brings to mind ritual purity, and the author of James makes use of this association, combining it with the noun θρησκεία. Thus, pure religiosity/wisdom, similarly to worship, is God-oriented, which means that in consequence it is also neighbour-oriented, especially the one identified as most needy. It is not a coincidence that God is referred to here as the Father because God was considered to be the protector/father of the most vulnerable social groups in Israel (Ps 68[67]:6, Sir 35:14). It has to be remembered that depriving widows and orphans of help and rights automatically generated a curse (Deut 27:19), so mentioning duties towards those who suffer (in the Greek text expressed with the use of the noun “in suffering” τῇ θλίψει), collated with the blessing in v. 12, creates the framework of the whole passage devoted to reflection on the nature of pure wisdom. Although helping widows and orphans on the literal level has been very precisely specified as ‘visiting them, seeing them, spending time with them’ (ἐπισκέπτομαι), it may be assumed that the narrator of James means more comprehensive care here – providing for all the needs of the poorest brothers and sisters. The ending of v. 27 in the version provided as textus receptus could also be considered as a reference to the blessing in v. 12 and an argument for the coherence of texts devoted to pure wisdom. Blessed is the one who overcomes temptation (v. 12a), the one who remains flawless and keeps himself unstained by the world. The adjective ἄσπιλος in v. 27 has been derived from sailing terminology; it indicates lack of damage of a ship by invisible underwater obstacles. The maritime background

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is pure (James 1:12–15.21a.27)

corresponds with the image of pulling fish out of water in v. 14. Furthermore, succumbing to temptation as to an adulterous woman and begetting sin with her (v. 14–15) are labelled here as κόσμος “the world” (cf. John 15:18–19, 16:33, 1 John 2:15–17), and they have to be avoided in the same way in which one avoids being seduced by an adulteress. Summing up the reflection of James upon pure wisdom, one must again stress that pure wisdom never uses blasphemy to justify temptations; a wise man should constantly resist them with God’s help. Pure wisdom makes people see truth about themselves and as a result helps them to reject like dirty clothes false notions concerning the externalisation of temptation. Contrarily – men endowed with wisdom acknowledge the fact that the primary source of temptation is their own greed they have been succumbing to since the time of creation in paradise. Thus, temptation and greed can be regarded here as synonyms, and giving in to them, combined with blasphemy, can be seen as the explanation of what “filth/impurity” and “wickedness” actually are. Abandoning false concepts concerning oneself and God and facing the truth about oneself enables man to fulfil the whole commandment of love, both the part referring to the love of God and that referring to the love of men, especially those most needy. Finally, pure love helps to recognise dangers that the world brings and helps to avoid them, which allows men to enjoy God’s blessing and to expect the life to come. Characteristics of a person endowed with wisdom or devoid of the gift can also be shown in a tabular format:39

39 Features discussed in the text are accompanied by sigla; when the features are reconstructed on the basis of opposition, there are no sigla attached.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

121

122

The Structural Commentary

Endowed with the gift of wisdom

Devoid of the gift of wisdom

– – – –

– – – –

– –

– – –

–

blessed/happy – James 1:12a; persevering in good – James 1:12b; tested by God – James 1:12c; given the promise of life – James 1:12d; aware of the origin of greed and sin – James 1:14–15; devoid of the urge to accuse God/to imprecate curses – James 1:13; rejecting all filth/impurity and wickedness – James 1:21a; undefiled before God – James 1:27b; manifesting devotion/godliness through service towards other people – James 1:27c; aware of the hazards imposed by the world – James 1:27d.

2.3

deprived of the blessing; not perseverant; not tested by God; deprived of the promise of life;

– accusing God of temptation/blasphemous;

– persisting in wickedness; – unchaste before God; – not confirming devotion/godliness through works;

Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3)

1:19

[You must] know/understand this, my beloved brothers: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for man’s anger does not perform/produce God’s justice/righteousness. 4:1 Where do the wars and fights among you come from? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure/cravings that are at war within you? 2 You desire something and do not have it; you kill and you envy, and cannot obtain it, so you engage in conflicts and fight. You do not have, because you do not pray/ask. 3 You pray/ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures.

Describing peace-loving wisdom (literally wisdom aiming at peace/irenic σοφία εἰρηνική), the narrator of James reaches for the constructs present in the previous account of the features of wisdom and previous statements and even for the same lexis (expanding the semantic field of the key notions) but also applies more articulate rhetorical devices and references to sapiential literature. Even though he

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3)

focuses on the present, he does not abandon the tri-partite division into the past, the present and the future, which constitute the story of salvation. The division is not as visible as before though, mainly because there are no clear references to the story of creation (the references are based on the assumption that the recipients know the previous descriptions and their structures, and on subtle allusions). This approach is fully justified – after drawing attention to the ktiseological determinants of the present condition of man, the narrator moves on to a more detailed description of this condition in a manner which is quite inconspicuous, almost elliptical, harking back to the past. The past Lust and pursuit of pleasures – James 4:1b.3c – as a reference to the story of the fall

The present The condition of man after the fall, shown mainly in negative terms: – usurping God’s position of authority – James 1:20; – conducting wars and battles – James 4:1a.2; – seeking pleasures – James 4:1b.3c; – covetous – James 4:2; – commiting murders – James 4:2; – not praying – James 4:2; – praying in a wrong way – James 4:3.

The future Suggestions on what man should be like (a positive aspect): – attentive, listening – James 1:19; – restrained in speech – James 1:19; – restrained in anger – James 1:19; – not usurping God’s prerogatives – James 1:20;

God’s eschatological righteousness in the last judgement – James 1:20.

The opposition of the conduct of a man endowed with wisdom (now this is peaceloving wisdom) and a man devoid of the gift of wisdom (what is clearly indicated by the reference of James 4:3 to 1:5–8) remains unchanged, but much more attention is paid to the latter. The features of the former are recreated on the basis of opposition (4:1–3) and given the form of a sapiential apophthegm (1:19).40 Once again, a

40 See also the chart concluding the reflection upon irenic wisdom.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

123

124

The Structural Commentary

man-made image of God is confronted with his real nature (James 1:20). A certain shift in the argumentation might be indicated by a transition expressed by means of an apostrophe “my beloved brothers” ἀδελφοί, μου ἀγαπητοί, and a change of grammatical forms: now those are mainly verbs in the 2nd person pl, especially in 4:1–3. The beginning of the transition is very similar to the previous transition in 1:16–18. The same phrase is applied here and one verb in the imperative form of the 2nd person pl. Further considerations are carried on in the 3rd person and are of more general nature, not limited to any particular group of recipients. It is indicated first of all by the use of the pronoun πᾶς (everyone) in 1:19. This resembles to a certain extent 1:5, where a conditional sentence is followed by imp. praes. act. “ask” αἰτείτω and a statement that God offers his gift of wisdom generously to “everyone” (or, more precisely, to all – πᾶσιν) who asks. Now this idea seems to be continued in a similar form: “everyone” asking for wisdom and receiving the gift “shall/let be”– ἔστω imp. praes. – “quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger” ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν. The apostrophe, and particularly the word “beloved” ἀγαπητοί, and 4:1–2 shape the oppositional framework of the whole passage devoted to irenic wisdom. On the one hand the narrator addresses the beloved (a positive aspect), but on the other hand, vv. 4:1–2 describe activities which do not have much in common with loving (a negative aspect): conflicts, covetousness, murders. The framework points out the direction of argumentation and description of wisdom as well – from positive and desirable features (James 1:19), through the indication of the origin of negative behaviour and motivation underlying it (James 1:20, 4:2a.c) to the negative features that are characteristic of the lack of wisdom. The positive description of irenic wisdom begins with the call Ἴστε which can be interpreted as imp. perf. act. or ind. perf. act. in the 2nd person pl. Taking into account the function of a transition and the paraenetic and diatribal character of the further fragment of the text, most commentators are in favour of the imperative form: “know”. Depending on the way in which the word is read, as an indicativus or as an imperativus, the meaning of line 1:19 might change. In the first case the narrator would refer to the knowledge of the recipients, in the second case – he would share his own knowledge concerning the conduct of a man endowed with wisdom. It is not possible to unequivocally say which translation would be more correct; it seems that the ambiguity is intended and consistent with the convention of the letter to the diaspora: some of the original addressees could have perfectly well recognised intertextual phenomena (references to sapiential literature) present in the argumentation of James; then the translation “you know” would be applicable. But some of them were not equipped with such competence and then the reading of the verb Ἴστε as an imperative would also be justified. The

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3)

lack of clear indication which solution would be more appropriate is in general characteristic of the demeanour of the sender who repeatedly resorts to this method. What seems to be important here is the use of perfectum, which suggests constant, ceaseless learning (despite previously acquired knowledge). It resembles the use of the present tense in 1:12, which underlines the need to fight a constant battle against temptation. Here it is used to illustrate the unceasing process of discovery and pursuit of what a man endowed with wisdom should be like. And again – like before, where God’s help has been implied – also here there appears a suggestion, explained in 4:3, that the ideal can be reached when one asks God for wisdom in prayer. It is clear that the description in 1:19b refers to a man endowed with wisdom, who listens, who is in control of his speech and emotions, particularly of anger, which is confirmed in sapiential literature (e.g. Sir 5:11, 20:5–7, Prov 10:19, 16:32, Eccl 7:9, cf. Matt 12:36–37),41 not only Jewish but also Greek and even Egyptian. It must be stressed that a person endowed with irenic wisdom is not someone who is always silent and never gives in to emotions, but a person who is in control of chaos, who objects to ferment and conflicts within a community, who takes care of the atmosphere (Prov 3:17).42 The parallels encompass not only the content of the sentence but also its gnomic form, which stands out from the whole text written in the convention of a direct appeal to the addressees. The gnomic form and convention suggest that the text cannot be perceived as a message aimed at individual recipients or even at a particular community, although such claims might arise due to the use of an imperative in the 2nd person pl. in the introductory statement. Nevertheless, the gnomic form and the pronoun ‘every’ πᾶς make the text much more general and universal,43 what perfectly well fits into the convention chosen by the implied author of James – a circular letter to the diaspora. Classical gnomes consist of two parts, but the author of James has complemented it with the third part which helps him to move on to the theological and anthropological reflection in 1:20. The next line should be literally translated as follows: “Every man should/let be quick to listen” ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι (cf. Sir 5:11, Prov 12:15, 19:20, 28:9).44 It has not been specified what kind of message one should be quick to listen to – we do not know if it refers to listening to other people, to each other (as e.g. Sir 5:11 suggests), to the word of truth45 from v. 18, or maybe to the Torah/the commandments (as might be assumed on the basis of Prov 28:9), to the words of James, or, finally, to the words of wisdom (as Prov 12:15, 19:20 suggest). 41 42 43 44 45

See also below. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 313. Ibid., p. 135. The full list of parallel sigla can be found in R. Bauckham, James, p. 83–84. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 86–87.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

125

126

The Structural Commentary

Wisdom in turn, as the previous descriptions imply, is based on the commandment of love; thus, the most accurate interpretation will be quick listening to the double commandment of love, which belongs to the Torah, and which incorporates most of the above proposals; this is the sign of the gift of wisdom. It means that the author of James, in his customary manner, does not limit the possibilities of interpretation to a single one but broadens the spectrum, leaving the choice of the most suitable and appropriate version to his recipients. It has to be emphasised, however, that – like in the case of previous fragments – also here the commandment of love is treated in a double way: quick listening to the Torah, to the commandments, to the word of truth and words of wisdom refers to God, but listening to James and to the words and needs of other people refers to neighbours. What can be noticed when we compare this passage to the previous sapiential reflection is shifting from the first to the second commandment of love, which has been heralded by the final fragment concerning pure love – 1:21a. The next fragment in literal translation says: “Everyone should/let be slow to speak” ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι (cf. Prov 17:27). Again, the narrator of James does not specify here what kind of speech he means. It might be, as in the case of the preceding statements, a warning against imprudent speaking that might lead to blasphemy, like in 1:13, where a similar idea is expressed, although it is based on an opposition: a happy/blessed [endowed with wisdom] man should not say he is being tempted by God: λεγέτω ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι.46 Most probably – similarly to the previous element – also this one on the one hand refers to God (a warning against blasphemy), and on the other hand – to other people, what could be evidenced by the words added in the subsequent anaphoric part which starts with the same phrase βραδὺς εἰς is developed in 4:1–3a. “Everyone should/let be slow to anger” ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν (cf. Eccl 7:9). James does not make it clear if what is meant here is inner, verbal anger or anger leading to physical violence. This part of the gnome is explained in 4:1–3a, although not quite explicitly.47 As in the other cases, the anger here may be interpreted in two ways – as anger aimed at God and thus similar to blasphemy, or as wrath aimed at other people which would result in the violence of the second commandment of love. An argument in support of the dual interpretation is the theological and anthropological conclusion in 1:20, attached here with the use of anadiplosis: the noun ὀργή, which closes the last segment of v. 19, is also applied at the beginning of v. 20. All three elements of the gnome can be viewed as the continuation of the earlier idea concerning self-restraint which is, as we know, the equivalent of wisdom. In

46 Cf. Ibid., p. 87. 47 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3)

the case of pure wisdom, restraint was understood generally; now it is specified and defined as moderation in speech and in anger as well as the incentive to listen (to the needs of our neighbours) and to obey the commandments. The continuation and, at the same time, conclusion of the gnome comes in 1:20: ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ οὐκ ἐργάζεται. What strikes us immediately is the opposition of elements: the anger of man and the justice/righteousness of God. It seems that the reflection in v. 20 has an anthropological and theological character based on the rejection of false concepts concerning God. What can also be noticed is a shift from the Old Testament tradition where righteousness ‫ֶצ ֶדק‬/‫ְצ ָָדָקה‬, particularly in sapiential literature, most often pertained to people who obeyed the Law (Deut 6:25, 1 Sam 26:23, Ps 18[17]:21.25, Prov 2:9, 10:2, 11:4, 14:34, Wis 8:7, 9:5, 15:3, Sir 32:16, Isa 1:17) while administration of justice and anger, especially in the prophetic tradition, was ascribed to God; the object of the anger were sinners (individual people or whole communities hostile to Israel), and its fruit was death (Isa 9:11, 10:5–15, 30:27–33, Jer 25:15–38, Ezek 5:10–12, Sir 5:3). Now has come the inversion, characteristic of James – righteousness has become the attribute of God and anger has become the attribute of man. The shift perfectly well corresponds with the previous reflection where God was shown as unchangeable (James 1:17) and one who cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Now another attribute is revealed: God is not subject to uncontrolled anger or emotions which could subvert his promises and constrain his saving will and his righteousness (cf. Isa 54:8–10). In contrast, man is unstable, changeable, succumbs to lust and emotions and anger is his inherent characteristic.48 We can also see at this point a polemic with pagan religions (similarly to James 1:13.17), where gods shaped like human beings were torn by emotions and where anger was deified as the Greek Erinyes. But the God of the recipients of James is different – constant, free from temptation and any emotions, especially those negative, which could affect his broadly understood righteousness. However, the shift mentioned above is not fully symmetrical. After all, justice as the attribute of God does not mean obeying the commandments although it does mean faithfulness to promises and the covenant. Anger, on the other hand, which was supposed to accompany God’s eschatological activities, when ascribed to man, does not become God’s anger. On the contrary, the ‘righteous indignation’ and anger directed against a sinful neighbour is a contradiction of wisdom (cf. Matt 5:21–22a.44–48, Luke 6:35–36), because human anger does not produce and does not even resemble God’s righteousness. Here the narrator of James underlines his negative assessment of human attempts to assume God’s position of power, espe-

48 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 87.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

127

128

The Structural Commentary

cially when it comes to judgement and punishment (cf. James 2:4, 3:1–2, 4:11–12) accompanied by anger. Since the righteousness of God cannot be understood in the same way as the righteousness of man, there arises a question of how it should be perceived. The author of James does not directly answer the question and the grammatical structure applied by him can be variously interpreted, which results in different theological approaches. Genetivus in the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ may thus be understood as genetivus subiectivus, genetivus obiectivus and/or genetivus originalis. In the first case the whole phrase would indicate a feature or attribute of God (God is righteous) and would have theological character49 . In the second case, it would be justice done by God (God administers justice), and the whole passage would acquire eschatological character because justice done by God will be most clearly revealed at the time of the final judgement. Righteousness can also function here as a synonym (metonymy) of God’s kingdom, where it rules (cf. Isa 46:13 LXX).50 In the third case, this would be justice coming from God, which could be offered to man as justification – then the utterance would acquire soteriological character. It seems that the eschatological and soteriological nature of this element is combined with the anthropological dimension. The ultimate meaning of the justice/justification offered by God would then be judgement, a verdict awarding man with life and salvation (cf. Rom 3:24, 5:16–17). The utterance of James could be interpreted in the following way: an angry man, the one who yields to wrath aimed at God and at other people, and who considers himself to be just, cannot count on justification. This in turn fits very well into the earlier anthropological concept of James: an angry man, doubtful and double-hearted, cannot expect the gift of wisdom, identified with life and now also with justice/justification, to be bestowed on him because he asks for it in a wrong way (cf. James 1:5–8 and 4:3). We could also analyse the meaning of the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in a passive and active aspect. Justice as the attribute of God is on the one hand a passive element, but on the other hand it is justice which generates the saving power and activity of God so its meaning is active and soteriologically oriented. The understanding of justice as the gift of God also reveals these two aspects: passive – as the state of justice, and active – as doing justice.51 Again, the narrator of James does not provide us with any guidance that would narrow down the meaning of the term δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ to one of the possibilities described above. On the contrary – he assumes that the recipients will interpret the text in accordance with their situation and competence. 49 Cf. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 81; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 139; T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 87. 50 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 139. 51 Ibid.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3)

Summing up this part of the reflection, it has to be said that, regardless of the individual understanding of the term δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ, the whole gnome has a binary, oppositional, anthropological and theological character already encountered before. The narrator again contrasts human behaviour – anger – with the attribute/ activity/gift of God – his justice. He shows thereby that anger and justice cannot exist side by side, and that the vision of angry God, especially in eschatological perspective, is wrong. Any attempts to assume the competence of God and any anger aimed at other people, even the most sinful, have nothing to do with justice as the attribute of God (which is a model to be followed) or as an attribute of man who observes God’s commandments and is thus endowed with wisdom. Parallelism and contrast used in 1:20 is also based on the fact that human anger, like greed and desire before, leads to death (cf. murders in 4:2) while the fruit of God’s justice is peace and life. Therefore, anger means here not only ‘holy indignation’ but also verbal and physical violence, which is confirmed in 4:1–3a,52 where the narrator focuses on the effects of wrath. The fragment describing the reasons and effects of succumbing to anger formally resembles the preceding passage. There appear here verbs in the 2nd person pl., similar rhetorical figures (anadiplosis and epistrophies in place of anaphoras) and symmetrical ambiguities. All those elements, in addition to the content itself, can be treated as indicators of the coherence of James 1:19–20 and 4:1–3. The consequence of anger is conflict and war while the source of anger is the pursuit of pleasures which cannot be acquired. Lack of satisfaction gives rise to anger, and anger becomes the source of conflict. The whole passage is marked by tension between the real and the metaphorical meaning of the notions used by the author. James 3:18 confirms that further deliberations refer not so much to anger itself as to lack of irenic wisdom. Earlier, irenicism has only been implied, general and based on the intuitive contrast between peace and anger, but now it is given a more concrete form. It is noteworthy that in the general part both a positive description of irenic wisdom – in 1:19, and a negative description – in 1:20 are used; but in the more detailed part, when the recipient, thanks to the index in 3:17–18 and the introduction in v. 18: καρπὸς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην (“And a fruit/harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for/ by those who make peace”), already knows that the passage refers to irenicism, only negative examples are provided. It is one of characteristic manoeuvers of the narrator of James who often defines notions crucial for his deliberations with the help of negation. What links both parts of the reflection is the notion of justice/ righteousness δικαιοσύνη which has nothing to do with anger and whose fruit is peace.

52 Ibid., p. 138.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

129

130

The Structural Commentary

Thus, irenic wisdom and its synonymous definition “righteousness”, in the predominant negative aspect, means: – lack of human anger (1:20); – lack of fighting; – lack of war; – rejection of the pursuit of pleasures; – lack of inner conflicts; – lack of covetousness (moderation) – lack of murder; – lack of envy; – a wrong way of praying/asking. In the positive sense it means: – receiving; – achieving; – a correct way of praying/asking. Even this cursory review lets us notice parallels between the positive aspect in 4:1–3 and the conduct of a person endowed with wisdom in James 1:5–6a. The narrator claims that the root of anger and, at the same time, of conflict and battles, is human pursuit of pleasure, coveting pleasure and praying/asking only in order to satisfy the desire of pleasure, what is expressed with the noun ἡδονη, used here as the inclusion of the whole fragment in 4:1 and 4:3. The equivalent and, at the same time, the answer to the question in 4:1: “Where do the wars and fights among you come from? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure/cravings” Πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ πόθεν μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν; οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν can be found in 4:3c: “to spend what you get on your pleasures” ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑμῶν δαπανήσητε. The noun ἡδονή is usually translated as ‘the pleasures of the flesh’ and in such ethically neutral sense the word appears in sapiential literature in the LXX (Wis 7:2, 16:20, Prov 17:1). But the meaning here seems to be closer to the one which can be found in 4 Macc 1:25, thought to be the bridge between biblical literature and Greek philosophy: “In pleasure there exists even a malevolent tendency, which is the most complex of all the emotions”. The Greeks, especially the Stoics, assessed ἡδονή in a definitely negative way, as the hotbed of evil.53 It seems that the author of James uses the notion in exactly the same sense although, unlike Philo,54 he does not narrow down the origin or the desire of pleasure to flesh but broadens it to soul

53 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volumen, ed. G.W. Bromiley, G. Frierdrich, G. Kittel, Grand Rapids 2003, p. 304–305. 54 Ibid., p. 304.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3)

and emotions and to the relations with other people. His description may thus be defined as relational hedonism that consists in bringing ethically doubtful pleasure of assuming God’s position of power over sinners, judging them, controlling them, and finally fighting and damaging them (in a metaphorical and literal sense).55 The noun ἡδονή used in 4:1, to a large extent semantically overlaps with the verb ἐπιθυμεῖτε in v. 2, and consequently thematically and lexically harks back to the previous reflection upon covetousness (James 1:14–15). The consequences of succumbing to desire are now more precisely defined – they bring about not only fighting and conflicts but also, as the narrator of James has already pointed out in 1:14–15, death. Since the connection between ἡδονή and ἐπιθυμία is evident, we might look for the references to the events in paradise also here – to the pleasure resulting from eating ripe, beautiful fruit (Gen 3:6 – “good for food” καλὸν τὸ ξύλον εἰς βρῶσιν). It is not a coincidence that in the background there is an inconspicuous allusion to Wis 16:20–21 and to the pleasure derived from eating. As has already been mentioned, in his argumentation which shows lack of peace as a feature contradicting irenic wisdom, the narrator of James uses elements of classical rhetoric. He starts with a rhetorical question Πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ πόθεν μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν, and he answers it with another rhetorical question, which suggests a positive answer: Yes, wars and conflicts come from craving for pleasures. The noun πόλεμοι in the literal sense may refer to hostility or directly to fighting (cf. Matt 24:6, Luke 14:31, 1 Cor 14:8, Heb 11:34, Rev 9:7.9), but it may also have metaphorical meaning, similarly to equally or even more ambiguous μάχαι, which in the NT does not have a typical military character but it denotes verbal arguments or conflicts (2 Cor 7:5, 2 Tim 2:23, Titus 3:9).56 It is impossible to unequivocally say if conflicts and disputes πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι have a literal meaning here and signify physical violence, or if the meaning is metaphorical and indicates verbal abuse. Most probably, both meanings overlap. The nouns πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι in combination with the verbs μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε in v. 2 create a very general chiasmus:57 A. wars πόλεμοι B. fights μάχαι B’. you fight μάχεσθε A’. you are at war πολεμεῖτε

55 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 324. 56 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 170. 57 Ibid., p. 167.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

131

132

The Structural Commentary

The chiasmus is developed and equipped with details in different ways, depending on how the components of vv. 2 and 3a are approached. Most commentators admit that those elements are arranged in an order resembling the stacatto form: – you want something; – you do not have it; – you commit murder; – you covet something; – you cannot obtain it; – you engage in conflicts; – you fight; – you do not have; – you ask; – you do not receive. The combination depends not only on the metaphorical or literal reading of the particular words or on the punctuation applied,58 but also on the choice of the source text.59 The elements are usually arranged as antithetical parallelisms or as cause and effect clauses. On the one hand, human actions, states and emotions are described; on the other hand – lack of effects or negative effects to which they lead: – you want – and do not have; ἐπιθυμεῖτε, καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε; – you murder and covet – and cannot obtain it; φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε, καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν; – you engage fight and engage in conflicts – (and60 ) you do not have; μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε, οὐκ ἔχετε; – you ask – and do not receive; αἰτεῖτε καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε. The characteristic feature here is that the verbs which normally require a complement – a direct or an indirect object, are devoid of such complements. As suggested above, this might be an element of coherence and symmetry between 4:1–3a and 1:19–20, where it is not specified what kind of listening, speaking or anger is meant.

58 See. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 170; T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 155; J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 201. 59 There is a possibility of a different reading of the text – instead of the verb “murder” φονεύω the verb φθονέω may be used, which means ‘to be covetous’, ‘to envy’, as in 1 Pet 2:1: Ἀποθέμενοι οὖν πᾶσαν κακίαν καὶ πάντα δόλον καὶ ὑποκρίσεις καὶ φθόνους καὶ πάσας καταλαλιάς. This emendation was applied by Erasmus of Rotterdam in the critical edition of the Greek NT in 1519 and the suggestion was followed by M. Luther in his translation: “ihr hasset und neidet und gewinnet damit nichts” (In: The Luther Bible, 1545; but in the Jubilee revised edition – Lutherbibel 2017 – there appears a different translation of the Greek φονεύετε “ihr mordet und neidet und gewinnt nichts”). 60 In some versions the conjunction καί added here – see e.g. ‫ א‬P Ψ.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3)

Here, it is not clearly defined what people actually desire (cf. James 1:14–15), what the object of their envy is or what they covet (the verb ζηλοῦτε can be translated in two ways), what they ask for in prayer and, on the other hand – what it is that they do not have, do not receive and cannot obtain. The above set of antitheses excludes the phrases διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς “because you do not pray/ask” in v. 2 and διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε “because you ask wrongly” in v. 3, introduced by the causal conjunctions διά, and διότι, which seem to serve as an epistrophic summary of the preceding inventory of phrases. In vv. 2 and 3 one of the favourite rhetorical figures of the implied author of James is applied – a polyptoton (used as an anadiplosis): μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς, αἰτεῖτε “you do not pray/ask” and “you ask”. The rhetorical wordplay with the verb αἰτέω does not finish here. The first part of v. 3 starts and concludes with this verb which suggests the use of a mini-inclusion. The repetition of the phrase “[you] do not have” in such pairs as: “you desire” – “and [you] do not have” and “[you] fight” – “[and] you do not have” may also be treated inclusively, which justifies the exclusion of the causal element in v. 2, and, by analogy, also in v. 3. As has been mentioned, the interpretation of v. 2 depends also on the literal or metaphorical approach to individual elements of the text, particularly the verbs “you kill” φονεύετε, “you fight/engage in conflicts” μάχεσθε, and “you are at war/fight” πολεμεῖτε. The last two can be viewed in the same way as their noun derivatives – “fights” and “wars”. The verb “kill” φονεύετε deserves more attention. As has been mentioned above, its interpretation might be a bit problematic,61 so in some critical editions of the text it was replaced with the verb φθονεύω – ‘to covet’. However, it seems that lectio difficilior is really better here because it refers to the preceding reflection in James, concerning the origin of death in the world.62 In James 1:15 there is a sequence: desire → sin → death; and here: seeking pleasure (which is the equivalent of covetousness) → lack of satisfaction (what very well corresponds with the Semitic understanding of sin ‫ ַחָטּאת‬as a mistake and missing the mark, or ineffective actions described in 4:2) → death (here specified as conflicts, wars, murders). The narrator does not make it clear if murders should be understood literally, or metaphorically and figuratively as an equivalent of wrath (as in Matt 5:21–22, cf. 1 John 3:15), in the same way as he does not suggest earlier how to understand death. The decision that it refers to real murders might lead to the conclusion that what the author of James has in mind are some tragic events in a real community,63 although it does not sound very convincing as the only possible interpretation of the text. As a circular letter, James probably encompasses all possibilities, metaphorical 61 See. e.g. argumentation of M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, p. 217. 62 Moreover, the combination of covetousness and damage of man appears also in apocrypha, e.g. in TSim 3: “[Envy] ever suggesteth to him to destroy him that he envieth”; also, see below. 63 Cf. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 170; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 183.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

133

134

The Structural Commentary

and literal, including even the most concrete ones about dramatic conclusions to some conflicts (cf. e.g. 1 Pet 4:15, Acts 23:12–13). The problem of ambiguity and difficulty in precise definition of the meaning emerges also when we attempt to interpret the expression used in 4:1 about “pleasure/cravings that are at war within you” ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν. Some commentators believe that this refers to the community the author addressed the letter to. It means that James used here the same image which was used by Paul to describe the Church: those who constitute it are members/organs of the same organism/body and conflicts among them inflict suffering upon the whole body (cf. Rom 12:4, 1 Cor 12:12–26).64 Still others see the Church as an organism consisting of local communities so they understand conflicts “among you” as frictions between particular groups; thus, the susceptibility of the members of the community to external influence triggers conflicts within the community.65 James could also refer to one of the meanings of the diaspora, mentioned in the prescript – it would indicate the diaspora as a Messianic community, divided and persecuted by other Jewish groups (cf. Acts 8:3, 9:1–13.21, 22:4.19, 26:10–11).66 An alternative explanation would be the portrayal of man and his inner life as a battlefield. The image was quite well-known in the ancient world and ancient hagiographers used to refer to it e.g. 1 Pet 2:11, Rom 7:21–23 (also the opposition body-Spirit in Gal 5:17). The idea and image of inner antagonisms can also be found in Qumran literature 1QS 3:17–19 (“[He] created man to rule over the world, and He put in him two spirits so that he might walk according to them […] These are the spirits of truth and of deceit”); 4:23 (“Up until now the spirits of truth and deceit struggle in the heart of a man”) and in intertestamental literature – e.g. TSim 3:3 (“And now, children, take heed of the spirit of deceit and of envy. For envy ruleth over the whole mind of a man, and suffereth him neither to eat, nor to drink, nor to do any good thing: it ever suggesteth to him to destroy him that he envieth”). It seems that at this point the duality of thinking of the narrator is revealed. On the one hand, the reflection refers to an individual and to the battle which is fought within a man; on the other hand, the communal dimension concerning members of a group cannot be ruled out. This means that again James combines several aspects and does not inform which ones are of primary importance. The idea can also be approached in a linear sense: inner conflicts give rise to frustration within every man, and they reveal themselves as conflicts among people. The fact

64 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 168; T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 155. 65 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 155; P.H. Davids, James, p. 156–157. 66 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 323–234.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is irenic/peace-loving/aiming at peace (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3)

that such thinking is close to the heart of the author of James might be confirmed by the continuation of this idea in vv. 2 and 3. The mention of inner conflicts, of contradictory pursuits of men, of succumbing to them is also a theological and anthropological element expanded here in comparison to the reflection in 1:13.17 and in 1:20. Previously the narrator confined himself to saying that God does not tempt anyone and cannot be tempted, is constant and unchangeable, is not torn by emotions. Now, describing inner conflicts within a man, James assumes that God is internally indivisible and consistent, as opposed to man. The predilection for the opposition God – man can be seen here again, although this time it is rather suggested than expressed in a verbal form. Summing up, the narrator of James develops here the previous idea of desire leading to death, which prevents people from fulfilling the commandment of love. Earlier on, the first, God-oriented commandment has been dominant, but here the second commandment begins to dominate. As has been mentioned, the description of the conduct in 4:1–3a is in opposition to the apostrophe the fragment starts with – “my beloved brothers”. Love is understood here as absence of conflict, peace, described not in a positive way but as the contradiction of the situations depicted earlier. Thereby, in the context of wisdom – irenic wisdom means (just as pure wisdom) wisdom which is restrained. Restraint cannot be achieved on one’s own – men are torn by inner conflicts so they should constantly ask for it in prayer. The concluding remark concerning prayer clearly refers to 1:5–8. The object of a good prayer should be wisdom which would help to reduce inner tensions. The object of a bad prayer is pleasure and satisfying one’s desires. Greed and lust lead to conflicts, in particular to inner conflicts and confusion, which seems to correlate with the description of a man who is internally torn and conflicted – δίψυχος and who does not receive what he asks for because he prays in a wrong way. In order to emphasise the sapiential dimension of the passage, the features of a man endowed with wisdom and one devoid of the gift of wisdom have been juxtaposed in the form of the chart:

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

135

136

The Structural Commentary

Endowed with the gift of wisdom

Devoid of the gift of wisdom

– – – –

– – – –

– – – – – – – – –

quick/eager to listen – James 1:19b; slow to speak – James 1:19c; slow to anger – James 1:19d; endowed with God’s righteousness;

– not seeking pleasures; – in control of desire; – internally consistent; – receiving what he asks for in prayer; – devoid of the desire to murder; – devoid of envy; – devoid of the desire to be engaged in conflicts and to fight; – obtaining benefits; – praying in a correct way.

2.4

not eager to listen; quick/hasty to speak; quick/hasty to anger; usurping the prerogatives of God, which does not result in righteousness – James 1:20; seeking pleasures – James 4:1b; succumbing to desire – James 4:2.3; internally conflicted – James 4:1; not receiving anything – James 4:3a; murdering – James 4:2; envious – James 4:2; engaged in conflicts and fighting – James 4:1.2; receiving nothing – James 4:2; praying in a wrong way – James 4:3.

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

1:21b

Welcome humbly/with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls. 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. 5:10 As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11 Indeed, we call blessed those who showed endurance. You have heard of the endurance of Job, and you have seen the end/purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.

Just as the previous manifestations of wisdom, the portrayal of gentle/compassionate wisdom is rooted in the story of salvation, in the commandment of love focusing here on the attitude of man towards God and on contrasting the behaviour of

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

a man gifted with wisdom and the one deprived of the gift. What can be traced here are references to the hermeneutics of integrity, which makes it possible to look at the described phenomena from the dialectic point of view and to combine (apparently) contradictory aspects into one whole. While at first glance the fragment does not seem to be of theological character, it nevertheless conveys one of the most interesting ideas in the Letter of James on the nature of God’s saving act towards man. Even a superficial analysis of the description enables the reader – only on the basis of grammatical forms – to notice the tri-partite division of the story of salvation (the past indicated with verbs in the aorist form 5:10–11 or in elliptically expressed present tense that refers to the state between the fall of man up to the present time – 4:8.16, the present described with verbs in the imperative form; and the future indicated with verbs in the futurum 4:7b.10 or by means of statements of theological nature described with verbs in praesens or its equivalent – 1:21b; 5:11b). Meaningful is also the chronological arrangement of the description in relation to the previously described elements: ktiseology (James 1:17–18 – wisdom from above), the story of the fall (1:14–15 – pure wisdom) and the portrayal of the situation of man after the fall (1:20, 4:1–3 – irenic wisdom). Now the narrator of James on the one hand describes the only possible conduct of men who wish to obtain wisdom, here understood as drawing close to God. On the other hand, he underlines kind, compassionate and merciful attitude of God towards men which vouchsafes them salvation. In accordance with the sapiential convention, the whole message is eschatologically oriented and its soteriological aspect is strongly emphasised. The past

The present

The future

– The state of man after the fall – inner conflict – James 4:8; – Boasting and arrogance – James 4:16;

– Accepting the word with meekness – James 1:21b; – Submission to God – James 4:7a; – Drawing near to God – James 4:8; – Cleansing hands – James 4:8;

– Salvation – 1:21b; – Gaining true wisdom – 1:21b; – Flight of the devil – James 4:7b; – Drawing close to God and exaltation – James 4:10;

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

137

138

The Structural Commentary

The past

The present

– Exhortations of – Cleansing hands – prophets – James 5:10; James 4:8; – The example of – Purifying hearts – prophets, especially James 4:8; Job – James 5:11b. – Lament – James 4:9; – Mourning– James 4:9; – Weeping – James 4:9; – Dejection – James 4:9; – The need to become humble – James 4:10.

The future – God full of mercy and compassion – James 5:11.

As visible as the division into three parts is the inclusive and, simultaneously, concentric structure of the fragment, which very generally can be depicted as follows: A Salvation thanks to the word 1:21b B The attitude of man towards God 4:7–10.16, 5:11a67 A‘ Salvation thanks to the compassion and mercy of God 5:10.11b. The framework of the division is established by words describing meekness, compassion, kindness and gentleness, synonymous to σοφία ἐπιεικής in 3:17. The term ἐπιεικής refers in the NT to treating other people in a kind and gentle manner, with compassion, to showing goodness, benignity and understanding. In the LXX it is linked to the act of judging (Wis 12:18) and to merciful, kind and lenient judgement (cf. Dan 3:42). It may also refer to patient endurance of trials and be a response to injustice (Wis 2:19).68 It seems that the narrator of James does not create his own definition of the term ἐπιεικής but uses those judicial connotations to equip it with eschatological meaning and connect it with “purpose of the Lord” (see James 5:11)69 and with wisdom which helps man to discover kindness, compassion, patience and mercy of God. The recipients are introduced to the subject of meek and compassionate wisdom by means of the initial phrase ἐν πραΰτητι in James 1:21b (with meekness/kindness/compassion/in silence/humbly).

67 There are several possibilities of further division and structuring, especially of the passage 4:7–10, they will be discussed further in the text. 68 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 313; see also 2 Cor 10:1 and Phil 4:5. 69 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

Line 1:21 has already been partially described. Its first part refers to pure wisdom (σοφία ἁγνή), and its second part, as has just been stated, to wisdom which is meek and humble on the one hand, but on the other hand it reveals itself as the compassion and mercy of God himself and therefore has a soteriological dimension. Both parts – like enharmonic equivalents, to use a musical term – are linked (or divided) by the phrase ἐν πραΰτητι which can be connected to both 1:21a and 1:21b. Although, as usual, the author of James does not provide us with any clue on which part exactly the phrase ἐν πραΰτητι refers to and the ambiguity should actually be respected,70 it seems that kindness and meekness go more naturally together with the idea of accepting the word.71 “Welcome humbly/with meekness the implanted word” may thus mean accepting the word due to “kind/gentle/compassionate/humble wisdom”. This is what 3:13 refers to, where the conduct resulting from the gift of wisdom is accompanied by humility and compassion.72 It can be clearly seen in both cases that the meekness and kindness (or meek, kind, compassionate wisdom) is neither a feature of character nor a human virtue but a gift coming from God. More difficulties than the phrase ἐν πραΰτητι arise when we analyse the complement of “the word” λόγος in 1:21b. “The word” λόγος itself can be understood as the word of the gospel which is first of all the promise of salvation; then welcoming the word is in many cases understood as the synonym of conversion (Acts 8:14, 17:11, cf. Luke 8:13 and par.).73 It can also be the synonym of “the word of truth” from 1:18, where it has the power to create and to give birth. This seems very probable, especially when the word is accompanied by the adjective ἔμφυτος which belongs to James’ hapax legomena. The term ἔμφυτος is difficult to interpret. Ideas derived from Stoic philosophy are usually pointed out here, in which λόγος σπερμάτικος would be the equivalent of James’ λόγος ἔμφυτος. The point would then be unveiling a certain rule which is revealed both in the universe as the macrocosm and in man as the microcosm. The fact that such borrowings were nothing unusual in Hellenised Judaism is confirmed by Sir 24:23–27 (cf. 4 Macc 5:22–24) where the Torah appears as a rule – the pattern of creation imprinted or innate to man who should obey it regardless if he is aware of its existence and meaning or not. The echo of such thinking can also be found in Rom 2:14 where Paul writes about the law imprinted in a natural way in the hearts of the gentiles,

70 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 88; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 142. 71 This choice is usually justified by contrasting the zealous ones who want to bring their brothers to justice and who are convinced that they are acting in the name of the Lord (James 1:20) with the ones who accept the word and remain ‘silent’, ‘meek’, similar to the ‘blessed’ ones in the sermon on the mount (Matt 5:5); see: S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 142 with fn. 53. 72 See below. 73 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 82; see: M. Konradt, Christliche Existenz, p. 71–72.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

139

140

The Structural Commentary

and in early Christian literature (e.g. in Second Apology by Justin the Martyr 13:5).74 Both lexically and semantically, λόγος ἔμφυτος resembles e.g. Wis 12:10 where wickedness is described as an innate characteristic of the inhabitants of Canaan: καὶ ἔμφυτος ἡ κακία αὐτῶν. As a result, λόγος ἔμφυτος is often interpreted not only as something in-born but as innate obedience to the law. To a person endowed with wisdom, whom James describes, commandments are not anything external but are internalised and stand in opposition to the equally natural desires depicted earlier (James 1:14).75 There is, however, a certain logical problem here, noticed, inter alia, by Sophie Laws – how can we accept something that is innate to us?76 The solution might be emphasising the other meaning of the adjective ἔμφυτος, derived from the lexicon of gardening and agriculture, that is – ‘implanted’, ‘incorporated’ (cf. e.g. The Epistle of Barnabas 1:2, 9:9).77 In this context, the associations with Jesus’ parable of the sower (cf. Matt 13:4–8.18–23 and par) are not a coincidence. The sown word must fall on rich soil (be accepted) to be able to put down roots (to be implanted) and to produce crop.78 In this case the opposition against human innate desires would be even more pronounced: it has been stated before that succumbing to lust gives birth to a sin and sin gives birth to death; now the implanted word, as something external, brings life.79 The closest paralel to λόγος ἔμφυτος seems to be James 1:1880 and the birth from God, which on the one hand allows to “welcome (…) the word” as something external, implanted in man, and on the other hand, the moment of birth from God makes the “word” innate to a man born in such a way. Hence, some commentators identify the birth from word and welcoming the word as the equivalent of baptism,81 although the text does not clearly allude to it. The double meaning of the adjective ἔμφυτος and lack of any suggestion which of the meanings is more appropriate very well reflects the strategy of the narrator of the Letter of James, his hermeneutics of integration which combines seemingly contradictory ideas; it is also consistent with the convention of a circular letter. The ambiguity is strengthened by the form of the verb δέχομαι – δέξασθε (imp. aor. med.), where the aorist might be seen as

74 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 83–84. 75 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 88; see also: J.A. Whitlark, ἔμφυτος λογός. A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James, “Horizons in Biblical Theology” 32 (2010), p. 144–146. 76 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 82–83. 77 Ibid., p. 82; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 143. 78 The associations with the parable are even more articulate when we add to them James 4:7 and the mention of the devil. 79 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 88. 80 M. Konradt, Christliche Existenz, p. 71. 81 Cf. J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 107.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

the expression of the singleness of the activity, which would very well correspond to the uniqueness of birth,82 and as the expression of an uncompromising call for total and unconditioned acceptance of “the word” in all its aspects. What helps to better understand “the word” is the continuation of v. 21 – τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν (that has the power to save your souls). We could focus on anthropological aspects and speculate whether what is meant here is a holistic vision of man and saving his life in the future (cf. e.g. Gen 19:17, Job 33:18), or maybe, with reference to Hellenised anthropology, to the soul (cf. Wis 3:1, 9:15), but it seems that stress has been laid by the narrator on “the word”, “the power”83 and on salvation which is identified with life; thus, on eschatology that is in line with the spirit of sapiential literature. Earlier, in v. 1:18, the opposition against desire which leads to death has been mentioned. However, we have to pay attention to the play on the meaning of words, characteristic of James. Psyche ψυχή in its ambiguity, refers to the term δίψυχος in v. 4:8 and is clearly contrasted with it. Δίψυχος is the synonym of a man devoid of wisdom and double-minded (lacking integrity). The phrase “to save your souls” stresses the integrity of a man gifted with wisdom and his demeanour is compatible with the demands mentioned in James 4:7–10. Stressing the saving power of “the word” is confirmed by its intuitive identification with the gospel while its saving message may be identified on the basis of James 5:10–11 with proclaiming the patience, mercy and compassion of God. As has been shown, 1:21b and 5:10–11 create the framework of the fragment describing wisdom that is kind, meek and compassionate, where the final passage constitutes a concluding transition. It begins with the characteristic apostrophe ἀδελφοί. In 5:10, prophets are depicted as those “who spoke in the name of the Lord” προφήται οἳ ἐλάλησαν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου and shown as the example of perseverance/suffering and patience. The two qualities should not be separated – on the contrary, perseverance/suffering and patience should be treated complementarily. The narrator of James reminds his recipients that the authority of the prophets did not come from themselves but resulted from the fact that they passed on the words of God (cf. the phrase repeated in prophetic books “Thus says the Lord” καὶ εἶπεν κύριος, e.g. Amos 1:2.3, κύριος ἐλάλησεν Isa 1:2, etc.). So the terms κακοπαθία καὶ μακροθυμία “perseverance/suffering” and “patience” refer to proclamation of the word and not to the life stories of the prophets or their demeanour in face of rejection and persecution, as it is often suggested, particularly when the text of

82 Sometimes, in spite of the aorist, the progressive aspect of accepting the implanted word is pointed out – it concerns first of all the activity of God within man. It is close from here to the identification of the gift of the word with the gift of the Holy Spirit; see: S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 143. 83 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 144.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

141

142

The Structural Commentary

James is analysed in a linear manner.84 Moreover, “perseverance” and “patience” also indicate to the listeners the features of God, his “perseverance” and “patience” in guiding his people, in calling them to faithfulness and repentance when the faithfulness is missing. And although the term κακοπαθία is often translated as ‘suffering’ or even ‘persecution’, ‘trials’, ‘difficulties’ or ‘lack of happiness’,85 it seems that this is not the aspect the author of James wished to emphasise here. On the other hand – the narrator of James does not usually unequivocally explain the meaning of the ambiguous terms he uses. In the context discussed, the ‘difficulties’ which are encompassed by the semantic field of the noun κακοπαθία should be understood as difficulties prophets encounter when proclaiming their message, as the already mentioned parable of the good sower demonstrates. The understanding of κακοπαθία καὶ μακροθυμία as “perseverance and patience” might be confirmed by lack of precise information which prophets the sender has in mind. If we narrowed down the term κακοπαθία to suffering, we would have to refer to only those Old Testament prophets who – depending on the competence of the recipients – connoted with martyrdom. Then Jeremiah is usually mentioned (Jer 20:7–9), Daniel, Amos, and sometimes Ezekiel (Ezek 20:4)86 and Enoch (who according to Sir 44:16 is the paradigm of patience). The problem is that, apart from Jeremiah, the only prophet who can be considered martyr is Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron 36:16). It is possible that the narrator refers to a tradition which was quite well-known in intertestamental times and which identified prophets with μαάρτυρες, witnesses and martyrs, what is confirmed e.g. by Matt 5:10.12, 23:29–34, Luke 6:22, 11:49, 8:33, Matt 23:39–41, Acts 7:52 as well as by The Ascension of Isaiah,87 but then the ambiguity of the term μαρτυς would have to be taken into consideration and also the wider semantic field of the term ‘prophet’, on the basis of what has been said in James 1:21b. If “prophets” are those who speak in the name of the Lord and are “an example of suffering and patience” of God, then everyone who speaks in the name of God and proclaims “the word”, interpreted here as the word of the gospel88 which has “the power save [...] souls”, should be considered

84 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 214. 85 Cf. below – the meaning of the verb κακοπαθέω in James 5:13 where wisdom full of good fruits is described. 86 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 264. 87 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 214. 88 The gospel should be understood here in the same way as it was seen by M. Luther who spotted it also in the Old Testament teaching: “[…] the New Testament is a Gospelbook, or book of grace, and teaches where one is to get the power to fulfill the law. But in the New Testament there are given, along with the teaching about grace, many other teachings […]. Just so in the Old Testament there are, beside the laws, certain promises and offers of grace, by which the holy fathers and prophets, under the law, were kept, like us, under the faith of Christ”, M. Luther, Introduction to the Old Testament (1523), http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm [accessed: 05.08.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

a prophet. In this characteristic way, the narrator of James includes in one phrase the past (Old Testament prophets), the present (charismatics contemporary with the implied author of James endowed with the gift of prophecy) and the future (those who will proclaim “the word” in the future). The fact that all “prophets” proclaim the word “that has the power to save [...] souls” is evidenced by the reference to the content of this statement in 5:11b; namely, pointing at “the end/purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful” ὅτι πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστιν ὁ κύριος καὶ οἰκτίρμων. When we take into account the context discussed and the structural approach, it becomes clear that what is meant is the eschatological “end/purpose”, the equivalent of saving souls from 1:21b. The Letter of James refers here in an evident way to the Old Testament message about “the Lord [who] is compassionate and merciful” (Sir 2:11, Ps 103[102]:8, 111[110]:4, 145[144]:8, Exod 34:6), although the terms ἐλεήμων, more frequent in the LXX (Exod 34:6, Ps 103[102]:8) and ἔλεος used in the NT, are replaced here with rare terms πολύσπλαγχνός and οἰκτίρμων. Using two synonymous modifiers side by side also reveals the Semitic provenience of the phrase. The prefix πολύ, in the first term underlines God’s great kindness, compassion, mercy or pity – qualities which are even more accentuated by the second modifier that in the LXX always refers to God. The meaning of both words can be encapsulated as meekness, gentleness and compassion, which in turn immediately brings to mind the term ἐπιεικής as the feature of wisdom coming from God, one that helps to recognise and accept those attributes of God. Summing up the theological reflection developed within the framework of the fragment describing wisdom which is gentle/meek/willing to yield, it ought to be declared that “the word about compassionate and merciful God, proclaimed with perseverance and patience, has the power to save [...] souls”. This is at the same time an introduction to the discussion on the attitude of man towards God, and thus – an implied reference to the commandment of love, characteristic of the author of James, here with the stress laid on its first part – the love of God. The way in which “the word” should be accepted is described in the central part of the fragment – James 4:7–10.16, in which the narrator presents – in line with the sapiential convention – teaching and examples of the desirable behaviour and the conduct which cannot be accepted. The expression ἐν πραΰτητι will be crucial both for the theological deliberations discussed above and for the anthropological reflection. In the theological context, it means forbearance while, in the anthropological context, meekness is stressed. Again, the narrator makes use of the device he likes so much, ambiguity, thus compelling the recipients to think in an unconventional manner. The connection between 1:21b and 4:7 may be deduced not only on the basis of the content but also due to formal affinity – the use of the same verb forms – imp. aor., which express firmness and which force the addressee, who positively responds to the summons to surrender completely to God and to totally oppose

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

143

144

The Structural Commentary

the devil, and then draw near to God, to truly cleanse the hands, truly purify the heart, and so on, up to v. 10. The structure of the fragment 4:7–10 sparks off debates. Due to the use of many similar verb forms, the text acquires rhythm and dynamism. It is also clear that in terms of form (in particular binarity) and content it draws upon sapiential patterns and cultic traditions (drawing close to God as a priestly function, purifications) as well as penitential traditions (weeping, lament, changing joy into dejection). Some commentators treat all these appeals as elements which are loosely and randomly connected, in a staccato form rather than in any logical sequence.89 Others strive to see here an organised structure, arranged around the verb forms. The framework would be established by the verbs ὑποτάγητε “submit yourselves” and ταπεινώθητε “humble yourselves”, and the pairs of appeals that follow would specify in more detail what the total submission to God and humility consist in.90 Submission to God Resisting the devil Drawing near to God Cleansing one’s hands Purifying one’s heart Lament, mourning, weeping Turning laughter into mourning and joy into dejection Being humble before the Lord. We can also discern special structures in the subsequent pairs: the first and the third one are based on antithetical parallelism, and the middle pair on synonymous parallelism. When meek/gentle/humble wisdom is described, also James 4:16 should be taken into account, as it sums up in a negative way the demands from 4:7–10. It shows that the behaviour of people to whom the call for change is addressed is full of sinful arrogance which stands in stark contrast to the kindness, meekness and humility coming from wisdom. What draws our attention here is the contrast between submission to God, which is static, and resisting the devil, which is dynamic, derived from military lexicon: the verb ἀνθίστημι also means fighting off attacks of an enemy (cf. military connotations in Eph 6:13). Sophie Laws thinks that the whole phrase in 4:7, and in particular the promise of the flight of the devil might be a remnant of a phrase written on amulets 89 R.P. Martin, James, p. 152; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 345. 90 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 163. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 181; P.H. Davids has a similar view on the structure: James, p. 165.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

or uttered in moments of threat, known in Jewish and Christian environments.91 Such promises that accompanied certain activities can be found in deuterocanonical biblical literature (Tob 6:7–9, 8:2–3). In extrabiblical texts the assurance that the evil spirit/Beliar will leave a man is closely connected with the status of a man who is just and obeys the commandments: “For if a man flee to the Lord, the evil spirit runneth away from him” (TSim 3:5); “Observe, therefore, my children, the commandments of the Lord, and keep his law; depart from wrath, and hate lying, that the Lord may dwell among you, and Beliar may flee from you” (TDan 5:1); “If ye work which is good […] God shall be glorified among the Gentiles through you, and the devil shall flee from you” (TNaph 8:4); “If ye do well, even the unclean spirits will flee from you […]” (TBenj 5:2). The correlation between the behaviour of man and the flight of the evil spirit is evident and it is used by the narrator of James (cf. 1 Pet 5:5–9) who alludes to this motif of intertestamental sapiential literature.92 The sender does not specify what the resistance against the devil should consist in; we can only try to guess it on the basis of other remarks concerning demons. In James 2:19 the faith of demons is mentioned which only consists in declarations and intellectual acknowledgement of the proclaimed ideas. But it is not followed by actions, what makes it not only fruitless (cf. James 2:20), incomplete and illusory,93 but also dead (cf. James 2:17.26). It seems that such thinking underlies the appeal to resist the devil: submitting to God cannot remain only a declaration – it must be followed by definite attitudes and actions encapsulated by the phrase resisting the devil. Describing the attitude of man towards God, the narrator reaches for cultic and liturgical language. This resembles 1:21a and 1:27, where he also referred to cultic purity in the context of the first commandment. Now he repeats the manoeuver, starting with 4:8 and the remark about drawing near to God – coming close to God, having access to him was a priestly function (Exod 19:22) or one reserved for outstanding figures (e.g. Abraham – Gen 18:22–23, Moses – Exod 24:1–2.12–18, Elijah – 1 Kings 19:9–13 or Isaiah – Isa 6:1–8). To preserve the rhythm and structural parallels of 4:7, he adds to the appeal ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ “to draw near to God” an element of a promise – καὶ ἐγγιεῖ ὑμῖν “and he will draw near to you” – probably derived from Old Testament tradition, particularly prophetic texts (Mal 3:7, Zech 1:3). All this is combined with sapiential tradition which emphasises the fact that drawing close to God is possible thanks to prayer (Ps 114[113]:18, and especially 91 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 181–182. 92 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 348 taking into consideration the military connotations of the verb ἀνθίστημι notices here allusions to cosmic/universal eschatology and the fight of the sons of light against the sons of darkness. 93 See below – chap. 2.9.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

145

146

The Structural Commentary

thanks to wisdom which helps to obey God’s commandments (Wis 6:17–19). The narrator applies here one of his favourite rhetorical figures – poliptoton, juxtaposing two forms of the verb ἐγγίζω ‘to get close’ – imp. aor. act. and ind. fut. act. As has already been said – the use of futurum indicates eschatological orientation of James’ reflection (just like Wis 6:17–19).94 In combination with the phrases used as the framework of the whole fragment – 1:21b and 5:11 – it might mean that drawing near to God in the end times signifies God’s compassion and mercy that have “the power to save […] souls”. Deliberations concerning the meaning of drawing near to God and resisting the devil are continued in James 4:8b, where cultic connotations in the call for purification are highlighted (Exod 29:4, 30:18–21, 40:12, Lev 15:5–8, 16:4). As before, the narrator combines them with prophetic and sapiential ideas. What is clearly stressed now is the integrity of actions – the “hands” and the “hearts” can be after all understood as a metaphorical term referring to the whole man, the external aspects – activity (hands – cf. Isa 1:15–16, Sir 38:10, Ps 24[23]:4) and internal aspects – feelings, thoughts, and will (heart – Jer 4:14, Sir 38:10, Ps 24[23]:4), which should be equally pure, although James uses here synonymous verbs: καθαρίζω and ἁγνίζω. Both have the form of imp. aor., what – as has already been said – suggests the total and comprehensive nature of purification. In James 4:8b, the tone of utterance changes completely – the narrator forfeits the element of a promise and introduces accusations in the form of apostrophes: ἁμαρτωλοί “sinners” and δίψυχοι “double-minded”, which in the middle of the utterance may serve as transitions. James 4:16 will have a similar function at the end of this sequence of appeals. Both apostrophes are usually treated as parallel and synonymous, although in the Letter of James the term δίψυχοι used quite frequently, seems to be crucial in this pair – inner conflict, separation of complementary elements is a contradiction of integrity and the crux of any sin, an obstacle which does not allow man to draw near to God and ask him for the gift of wisdom (cf. James 1:5–8). In this context, the message of James seems to be clear: the one who has only cleansed the hands – remains a sinner; the one who has only purified the heart – remains torn and double-minded. The transition in v. 8b helps the recipients to concentrate on the way in which this total and comprehensive purification should be understood (4:9–10). This time, prophetic language has been used in the description (Jer 4:8, Joel 2:12–13, Amos 8:10) and the so-called septuagintisms – only in verse 9 there are four terms which cannot be found anywhere else in the NT: ταλαιπωρέω, γέλως, μετατρέπω

94 Otherwise S. Laws, Commentary, p. 183, who claims that James 4:8 does not concern eschatological proximity of God but the suggestion that God is always present in the life of a person who draws near to God.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

and κατήφεια95 but are – with the exception of the last one – used in the LXX.96 Total purification requires integrally treated repentance and atonement. This is why the narrator first calls for acknowledging one’s wretchedness ταλαιπωρήσατε,97 to mark the attitude towards God and towards oneself (the internal aspect), and then for expressing it through lament and weeping πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε (the external aspect).98 A certain logical sequence can be noticed here – acknowledging one’s wretchedness and sinfulness which require purification (4:8) leads to weeping and lament over one’s sinful condition (cf. Joel 2:12–13). Simultaneously, in the context of the description of meek/compassionate wisdom, allusions to sapiential literature should be strongly stressed, in particular to Sir 51:19–20 where absence of wisdom and awareness of the absence, manifesting itself through the inability to obey the commandments, leads to lamentation (not accidentally, there is a clear lexical reference to Sir here; the author od James uses the same verb – πενθέω). The second part of v. 9 differs stylistically from part one. The use of binary oppositions: “laughter” – “lament”, “joy” – “dejection” (9b) is in contrast to the synonymous (albeit referring to different aspects of repentance and atonement) verbal triad ταλαιπωρήσατε καὶ πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε. On the other hand, the cohesion of both parts is preserved thanks to the polyptoton (πενθήσατε – πένθος). In 4:9b there is also a change of the agent. Those are no longer the recipients who are supposed to change their laughter into mourning and their joy into dejection. The use of imp. aor. pass. in the 3rd person μετατραπήτω might suggest that the narrator sees the source of the inversion in God. The eschatological direction of the whole reflection is implied or, to be more precise, a warning – if now, with God’s help, there will be no total change of the lifestyle, this inversion will come about in the end times and will be an element of the final judgement. As we can see, what is meant here is not joy and laughter in a general, universal sense, but a motif known from sapiential literature – delusive joy and laughter which result from lack of humility, from a life that is not submitted to God, from lack of purification and repentance and, in particular, from not acknowledging one’s own wretchedness and from lack of wisdom (Sir 27:13, Prov 10:23a), strongly stressed in James 4:16. The structure of verse 10 resembles vv. 7 and 8a because the call for humility expressed by means of imperatives of the 2nd person plural ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον

95 96 97 98

For more about the noun καήφεια – see: Introduction. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 184. The verb ταλαιπωρέω is sometimes translated as ‘enduring trials’, ‘suffering’. Cf. M. Luther, The 95 theses, Thesis 1: “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, Repent, he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance; Thesis 3: Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh”, http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/205luther0.htm [accessed: 06.08.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

147

148

The Structural Commentary

κυρίου is followed by the promise of exaltation ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς that has an eschatolog-

ical character indicated by the form of the futurum. What is more, a characteristic opposition between being humble and being exalted is applied here. The motif of the exaltation of the meek and humble has certainly been derived from the OT. The references to Prov 3:34 and Job 5:11 seem to be of particular significance: the noun ταπεινός, which appears in OT books, has the same root as the verb ταπεινόω ‘to humble’ used in James 4:10. Linear reading of the Letter of James might suggest that ταπεινός should be identified with the poor or those who represent lower social status (1:9, 2:5–6) while the structural approach and references to sapiential literature help to look at the meaning in a broader and more universal manner. Thus ταπεινοί are those who – regardless of the social or financial status – have humbled themselves before God, have acknowledged their sinfulness, have submitted themselves to God and now repent – like the ones described in 4:7–9. What is meant here is not humility before people but an existential experience – humility and submission to God that stem from the gift of wisdom. As Scot McKnight points out, repentance and atonement which are denoted by the word ταπεινός (humble), lead to grace that exalts man and to acting in a peaceful and merciful manner.99 4:16 stands in stark contrast to the mild tone of the preceding passage but adding it to 4:7–10 corresponds to the strategy applied by the narrator in 4:8b where, quite unexpectedly, there appear apostrophes accusing the recipients. This time, accusations against the recipients are expressed by means of the statements: νῦν δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονείαις ὑμῶν· πᾶσα καύχησις τοιαύτη πονηρά ἐστιν (as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil). The contrast is visible here not only in the change of tone but, again, in the introduction of a negative element that follows the appeal to act in a way indicated by humble and compassionate wisdom. So far, humility and meekness have been praised, but now there appears an accusation of arrogance.100 The second observation might seem surprising: the object of the narrator’s criticism is not arrogance as such but taking pride in it and depending on it (cf. James 3:14). Contextually, the “arrogance” would encompass here one’s own achievements in every sphere of human activity but particularly in the spiritual sphere. This might refer to 4:9b, containing passivum theologicum, which suggests that the primary reason for repentance of eschatological nature is God, and not man. Not accepting this truth leads to depending on one’s own resources and, consequently, to taking pride in one’s own spiritual competence. However, this means the negation of the submission to God and of drawing near to him (James 4:7a.8a); a man who acts in this manner does not resist the devil (James

99 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 358. 100 When the passage is read in a linear manner, those are merchants who are accused of arrogance; in the structural approach, 4:16 acquires a more universal character.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

4:7b) and may thus be counted among ἁμαρτωλοί “sinners”, and δίψυχοι people who are “double-minded” (disintegrated) and infirm of purpose. In the whole fragment devoted to submission to God and to repentance, we can see allusions to cult and to prophetic and sapiential literature, including the Book of Job. Prophets and Job are the element connecting 4:7–10.16 and 5:10–11, mentioned earlier due to links with 1:21b, especially the explanation of the phrase λόγος ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν (the word that has the power to save your souls). Now it is clear that verses 5:10–11 are a theological reflection on the attitude of God towards man. It may be assumed that the words from 4:8 – “draw near to God” constitute a synthesis of James 4:7–10.16a; similarly, 5:10–11 is the development of the promise “he will draw near to you”. As has been mentioned, the origin of this promise can be found in the teaching of prophets who with “perseverance/suffering” and “patience” used to build the image of “compassionate and merciful” God by passing on his words. Referring to the example of prophets is simultaneously a continuation of the cultic and priestly theme from 4:7–8: in the same way as priests were seen as the representatives of people before God, prophets were thought to be the representatives of God before people.101 This means that patience and perseverance in proclamation of the word were a reflection of God’s patience and perseverance in encouraging man to be humble, to acknowledge his sinful condition and to repent (cf. James 4:9b and the arrogant negation of God as the primary source of repentance and conversion in 4:16). Most controversies and ambiguities in this description of humble and compassionate wisdom are raised by the passage introduced in 5:11 by means of the particle ἰδοὺ ‘thus’, ‘indeed’, ‘so’ which in other fragments of James is used to introduce a new idea (cf. James 3:4, 5:4, 5:7, 5:9). Such was probably the primary intention of the narrator, which is confirmed by the differentiation of forms: in 5:10 imp. aor. in the 2nd person plural is used λάβετε “take”, while the particle is followed by the verb μακαρίζω ‘to consider happy’, ‘to praise’ in the 1st person plural of ind. praes. act. By means of a polyptoton (τοὺς ὑπομείναντας· τὴν ὑπομονήν), the narrator connects the first sentence with the example of Job and at this point introduces further verb forms – ind. aor. act. ἠκούσατε and εἴδετε “you have heard” and “you have seen”, which, similarly to the imperatives before, refer to the holistic and absolute aspect of the described activity or state.102 Thus the remark about Job can be treated as a bit accidental and unfinished, and the microstructure of 5:10–11 can be presented as follows:

101 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 417. 102 Ibid., p. 418.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

149

150

The Structural Commentary

A. The example of prophets – preachers and representatives of patient and forbearing God (5:10). B. A bit accidental and/or unfinished reference to the perseverance of Job (5:11a–b). A’. The end/purpose of the Lord – eschatology, showing merciful and compassionate God that alludes to the teaching of the prophets (5:11c–d). In the context of humble and perseverant wisdom, only elements A and A’ would bear real significance, as shown above. Still, it would be difficult to totally ignore 5:11a–b, particularly in view of the fact that it contains an interesting term ὑπομονὴ “patient endurance”103 and a verb derived from the same root ὑπομένω in part. aor. act. The term hardly ever appears in the LXX, but it is used in the Book of Job 14:19 in the context of endurance and patience of man, comparable to the persistence with which water wears down rocks or the wave washes away the soil. “Patient endurance” may thus be a synthesis of the nouns κακοπαθία καὶ μακροθυμία from v. 10 and even more clearly underscore here endurance rather than suffering (cf. James 1:3–4). This would therefore be another illustration of the patience of God. Sophie Laws points out that the references to Job do not necessarily have to come from canonical writings; on the contrary – much more probable would be a reference to the intertestamental Testament of Job, belonging to the tradition of sapiential literature. In TJob 1:27 we can find a declaration: “After that, my children, I replied: ‘From the love of God I shall endure until death all that will come upon me, and I shall not shrink back’”104 which can be interpreted Christologically and soteriologically, particularly in combination with the title κύριος (the Lord). A certain interpretative hint, especially in the context of meek/compassionate wisdom, is the way in which the example of Job is used in 1 Clem. 17:3–4: Moreover concerning Job also it is thus written; And Job was righteous and unblamable, one that was true and honored God and abstained from all evil. Yet he himself accuseth himself saying, No man from filth; no, not though his life be but for a day.105

The example of Job would then indicate the attitude with which man should accept persistent and patient activity of merciful God. This very well corresponds with the stance demanded earlier by the narrator of James and with the humility, the 103 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 187; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 171; R.P. Martin, James, p. 189. 104 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 215; see also P.H. Davids, James, p. 187. 105 Clement of Rome, First Epistle, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ 1clement-lightfoot.html [accessed: 07.08.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is humble/compassionate (James 1:21b, 4:7–10.16, 5:10-11)

necessity of repentance and rejection of arrogance and of taking pride in one’s spiritual abilities. Translation of the phrase τὸ τέλος κυρίου εἴδετε “you have seen the end/reason/ purpose/death of the Lord” poses another difficulty. The interpretation depends to a great extent on the way in which the noun is translated and this is the reason why some manuscripts106 provide an easier version – ἔλεος whose continuation is the remaining part of verse 11. Still, if we, following the example of Wis 3:19, assume the metaphorical meaning of the term τέλος – ‘death’ – then the text might be interpreted Christologically, especially in combination with the allusion to TJob 1:27 quoted above. If the noun is equipped with causative meaning – ‘reason’, then the whole phrase becomes closely linked to the canonical story of Job and is a kind of theodicy,107 justification of God in the eyes of the “patiently suffering” believers who have the impression that God has forgotten them. Showing the “purpose” – the reward of Job (Job 42:10–17) – would be simultaneously a confirmation that God is merciful and compassionate.108 This interpretation entails a standard approach to the figure of Job as well as the change of emphasis from patience to difficulty and suffering in the noun κακοπαθία (5:10). Reading τέλος as ‘the reason’, in turn, leads us to James 1:2–4, what is noteworthy insomuch that in vv. 3 and 4 there appears a noun stressing the aspect of “endurance” and not of difficulty or suffering. When the noun τέλος is translated in a cause and effect manner, one can easily track down the influence of sapiential literature, especially of Wis 2:12–20 (cf. also TBenj. 4:1). On the one hand, the suffering of a just and wise person is caused by the actions of his opponents (in the case of Job who is the epitome of a sage – those will be the accusations of Satan, Job 1:9–12); on the other hand, the finish will be accepting of “a righteous man by God as his child and deliverance of him from the hand of his adversaries” (Wis 2:18.20) when God’s mercy and compassion will be exposed. Our commentary assumes as most probable the eschatological orientation of the phrase τέλος κυρίου and its linking not only to compassion and mercy of God but also to saving souls. This option might be confirmed by numerous references in James to the coming of the Lord, to judgement and God’s mercy which will be fully revealed in the end times109 as well as the references to the eschatologically oriented tri-partite division of the story of salvation, typical of wisdom literature and characteristic of the structure of James. It is thus not possible to point to one obligatory variant of interpretation. It is very probable that, in accordance with the strategy adopted by the narrator, he leaves the choice of the most appropriate

106 107 108 109

Minuscules 1175 and 1739*. R.P. Martin, James, p. 189–191. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 172; S. Laws, Commentary, p. 216–218; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 422. R.P. Gordon, Kai to telos kyriou eidete (Jas V,11), JTS 26 (1975), p. 91–95.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

151

152

The Structural Commentary

model of interpretation – one that suits their competence and situation – to his recipients. To sum up the reflection on humble/compassionate/patient wisdom, we have to underscore again the ambiguity of terminology applied by the narrator. The ambiguity is visible even at the point when the feature is described in James 3:17 where ἐπιεικής denotes wisdom which is humble but also compassionate, perseverant, gentle and patient. The ambiguity defines the lines of interpretation – on the one hand σοφία ἐπιεικής indicates wisdom whose effect is humble attitude of man towards God; on the other hand – it helps to clearly see in it a gift coming from God who is patient and perseverant (as it was proclaimed by the prophets) as well as full of compassion and mercy (which will be fully revealed in the end times). The narrator thus focuses mainly on the first commandment of love. The description of the attitude of man towards God – typically of James – comprises both positive elements (characteristic of a person endowed with the gift of wisdom) and negative elements (typical of someone who is “torn” and “double-minded”, “a sinner” devoid of the gift of wisdom); some of them have to be reconstructed in opposition to the features and attributes illustrated by the narrator. Endowed with the gift of wisdom

Devoid of the gift of wisdom

– humbly accepting the word about merciful God – James 1:21b: – adopting appropriate – humble – attitude towards God: – submitted to God – James 4:7a; – resisting the devil – James 4:7b; – able to draw near to God – James 4:8a;

– not accepting with humility the word about merciful God – James 1:21b; – devoid of humility: – arrogant – James 4:16; – depending on one’s own resources – James 4:16; – unable to resist the devil – James 4:7b; – unable to draw near to God/remote from God – James 4:8a;

– acknowledging his wretchedness and aiming at total internal and external purification (cleansing hands, purifying the heart – James 4:8b);

– only party acknowledging his impurity: – cleansing (only) hands – the external aspect – sinful – James 4:8b; – purifying only the heart – the internal aspect – double-minded – James 4:8b; – sinful;

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12)

Endowed with the gift of wisdom

Devoid of the gift of wisdom

– constantly repenting, and thus: – unable to repent, and thus: – acknowledging his – not acknowledging his wretchedness, wretchedness – the internal proud and arrogant – the internal aspect – James 4:9a; aspect – James 4:16; – lamenting – the external – unable to lament – the external aspect – James 4:9a; aspect – James 4:9a; – unable to weep – the external aspect – – weeping – the external James 4:9a; aspect – James 4:9a; – allowing God to intervene in – not allowing God to intervene in his life: his life by: – pleased with himself – James 4:9b; – turning laughter into mourning – James 4:9b; – turning joy into dejection – James 4:9b; – able to humble himself before the Lord – James 4:10a; – expecting eschatological exaltation – James 4:10b.

2.5

– unable to humble himself before God – James 4:10a.16.

Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12)

1:22

But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like someone who looks at the face of his birth/his own features in a mirror and, 24 once he has seen what he looks like, has gone away and has immediately forgotten it. 25 But whoever looks closely at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts – he will be blessed in his doing/thanks to his doing. 2:10 Whoever keeps the whole law but breaks one [commandment] is guilty of breaking them all. 11 For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery”, also said, “You shall not murder”. So if you do not commit adultery but you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

153

154

The Structural Commentary

Wisdom which is obedient – εὐπειθής – is closely related to the previous feature – humility/compassion (ἐπιεικής). The link is additionally emphasised by alliteration. James continues the description of the attitude adopted by a wise man before God and the attitude towards God’s law. The term εὐπειθής can be etymologically translated as ‘willing to concede’ or, even more literally, as ‘encouraging to do good’ (εὐ ‘well’ + πείθω – ‘encourage’, ‘convince’); nevertheless, the concession, obedience and willingness seem to have a clear objective: due to the gift of wisdom, man becomes obedient to God’s will and to God’s law and is willing to act in accordance with them.110 Obedience to the law and fulfilling God’s will are described as integrated activities which involve the whole man, and this is underlined by the narrator by references to listening, observing, meditating, remembering and obeying all commandments. The analogy of integrity is very clear here – in the same way as God’s law constitutes a coherent unity and cannot be observed by obeying only some commandments, similarly, the engagement of man in fulfilling God’s will cannot refer only to some chosen aspects of human activity. As before, the narrator looks at obedience to the law from the perspective of the story of salvation and sees in it the manifestation of wisdom. On the one hand, he comes back to ktiseological issues mentioned in the previous descriptions, when he evokes the image of a mirror, thus bringing to mind the creation of man in the image and likeness of God and the state of mankind after the fall, and on the other hand he very clearly refers to the giving of the law by God at Mount Sinai. Both in 2:11, and then in James 4:12,111 the narrator underlines that the law comes from God, and not from Moses, which is characteristic of sapiential tradition. After the reflection concerning the situation and attitude of man towards God following the fall, which has been the main motif of the description of humble/compassionate wisdom,112 the author of James points to the law offered by God as the source of happiness, blessing and freedom (James 1:25c; 2:12), understood mainly in eschatological terms.

110 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 314. 111 See below – chap. 2.9. 112 See above – chap. 2.4.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12)

The past Ktiseology – implications resulting from creating man in the image of God – James 1:23b-24; Giving the law at Sinai – James 2:11.

The present Obeying and not obeying the law; Positive aspects: – putting words into action; man as the executor of the law – James 1:22a. 25a.b; – looking into the law of liberty – James 1:25a; – following the law – James 1:25a.

The future Eschatology – judgement by the law of liberty – James 2:12; blessing which comes from obeying the law – James 1:25c.

Negative aspects: – only listening to the law – James 1:22b–23; – forgetting the law and one’s position in regard to the law – James 1:24.25b; – violating one commandment as violating the whole law – James 2:10.11b. It is not a coincidence that the motif of listening to, meditating upon and execution of the law, or, in other words, the motif of the integrated conduct of a man endowed with wisdom obedient to the law, follows the earlier theological deliberations concerning the consistence, unchangeability, faithfulness and compassion of God combined with the description of the attitude of man towards God after the fall. Now the narrator develops the motif of the compassion of God who gives the law to man and the motif of an integrated answer of a man who should not only listen to the law but also meditate upon it and act according to its principles, being enabled to it by wisdom. Drawing upon the sapiential convention, the author of James presents his demands in a binary way – describing both positive and negative behaviour. The imperatives used at the beginning and at the end of the description of wisdom obedient to the law (γίνεσθε and ποιεῖτε ‘be’/’become’ and ‘act’) help the recipient to read the whole reflection as an inclusive composition, where the framework is set by the description of desirable behaviour, and acting creates a concentric form with a blessing at the climactic point:

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

155

156

The Structural Commentary

A. “Be doers of the word” (1:22a) – a positive aspect; B. “Do not be merely hearers who deceive themselves” (1:22b) – a negative aspect; C. a parable of a man seeing his reflection in the mirror – integrity of behaviour (1:23–24) – a negative aspect; D. The end of the parable and the blessing (1:25) – a positive aspect;113 C’. Teaching about the integrity of the law (2:10–11) – a negative aspect; B’. “So speak [as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty]” (2:12a) – a positive aspect; A’. “So act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty” (2:12b) – a positive aspect. The coherence of the whole fragment is based not only on the main theme – wisdom obedient to the law – but also on lexical references and the use of similar grammatical forms (it concerns mainly the use of such terms as νόμος, νόμος ἐλευθερίας, ποιέω ποιητής ἀκροατής in 1:23–25 and in 2:10–12, and expressing the whole continuous process of ‘becoming’, started in the past and having results at present – γινόμαι in praesens and in perfectum). The reflection upon wisdom obedient to the law starts with the appeal to the recipients to continually ‘become the doers of the word’, what is indicated by the verb γινόμαι used in imp. praes. This resembles the previous deliberations upon continual prayer for wisdom (James 1:5–6 αἰτείτω also in imp. praes. act.) which, also on the grammatical level, suggests a relation between wisdom one can ask for and the ability to “act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty”. The key terms in verse 22 seem to be the nouns ποιητής ‘the doer’, ἀκροατής ‘the hearer’ and λόγος ‘the word’. All of them are elaborated and crystallised in further considerations, although already at this point great emphasis is laid upon the need of integrity of human demeanour, expressed by means of contrasting appeals to behave in a desirable way – “be doers of the word” (a positive aspect) – and to reject undesirable conduct – “do not be merely hearers [of the word]” (a negative aspect). What may draw our attention is the Semitic tone of v. 22 (and v. 25 with similar vocabulary and connotations). It is visible in the term ποιητής which is a noun equivalent of the Hebrew participle ‫ עֶֹשׂה‬derived from the verb ‫‘ – ׇﬠׇשׂה‬do’/‘act’/ ‘observe’. In the OT, the reader may quite frequently come cross a phrase “to observe 113 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 146, reading the text in a linear way, notices in 1:22–25 the following dependencies:1:22 the need to hear and do, with warning about deception.1:23–24 illustration, similarity to a mirror.1:25 the need to hear and do, with a promise of blessing.In 1:22 and 1:25 the claims are arranged in a chiastic structure:A. do;B. not just listen;B’. not just listen,A’. but also do.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12)

the law/commandments/customs” (e.g. Deut 4:13, 5:1.32, 6:1.25), which makes the recipient, especially one whose competence and situation allows it, instinctively link obedience and ‘doing the word’114 with obeying the Torah, keeping the commandments and, consequently, with obedience to God’s will expressed in them. The connection of this phrase with sapiential literature, especially with Sir 19:20, 51:19, seems to be even closer; there, ποίησις νόμου ‘doing’/‘observing the law’ is synonymous with possessing the gift of wisdom, acting in accordance with it and glorifying the Giver (cf. Sir 51:16–17). Despite the primary position of the appeal to the recipients to ‘become doers of the word’, ‘doing of the word’ must be preceded by listening to it/hearing it. A similar sequence can be found in Sir 51:16 and it pertains to wisdom, without which obeying the law is impossible: “I inclined my ear a little and received her[wisdom]”.115 As we can see, the most frequent complement of ‘hearing’ and, in particular, of ‘doing’/‘observing’ in Old Testament literature is the law. As a result, the recipients might already in the initial sentence of the fragment associate “the word” with “the law”, even though it is explicitly articulated only in v. 25, and then more precisely in 2:10–12 in a way leaving no room for doubt that “the word” means “the law” and that, moreover, that is “the law of liberty” (νόμου τῆς ἐλευθερίας).116 In the case of a linear approach, attention is paid to the relation between “the word” in v. 22 and its earlier modifiers in vv. 18 and 21: λόγος ἀληθείας and ἔμφυτος λόγος. In the structural approach, these terms describe another aspect of wisdom, but they also help to specify the meaning of the term “the law of liberty”, especially in its eschatological and soteriological aspects (cf. James 2:12).117 Moreover, in the “innate/implanted” word, it is easy to notice links to Jeremiah’s Torah, rooted deeply in minds and inscribed in the hearts of the believers (cf. Jer 31:33 in the LXX – Jer 38:33). In v. 25, instead of the phrase ποιηταὶ λόγου “doers of the word”, there is an expression ποιητὴς ἔργου “doer who acts”, which means for the author of James doing/observing the word/the law is synonymous not only with hearing it (1:22) but also with active doing.

114 It has to be noted, however, that in the LXX the phrase “to do the law” is usually worded as ποιεῖν τὸ ῥῆμα and not as ποιεῖν τὸν λόγον. 115 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 85 notices the Semitic character of these phrases on still another level – what she means is the practice of hearing the Torah at synagogues and the Jewish debate concerning the merits of hearing the Torah. 116 M. Uglorz, Życie według prawa wolności w rozumieniu św. Jakuba, Warszawa 2012, p. 54, claims that the formal absence of explanation of what “the law of liberty” actually means results from the fact that “the recipients of the letter knew rly well what ‘the law of liberty’ was. The phrase must have been used frequently by the author of the Letter. It was clear to the listeners and there was no need to explain it to the addressees of the Letter”. 117 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

157

158

The Structural Commentary

However, it is not a coincidence that the narrator separates doing and hearing the word and arranges these two activities in a surprising order: first doing, and then hearing. This is his way to expresses the conviction that doing alone, which is not preceded by listening to the word/the law and meditation upon it, being satisfied with hearing only, is incomplete. Such a mechanical, unreflective, literal and fundamentalist approach to doing/observing the law, known as orthopraxy, was criticised by Jesus (cf. Matt 7:12–27 and 25:31–46), by Josephus (Contra Apionem 2:171) and in Qumran texts (4Q470); Scot McKnight calls this practice ‘a hallmark of Judaism’.118 Thus, observing the word/the law has to be integrated with listening to it to make it possible to recognise in it – as it is illustrated in v. 25 – “the perfect law, the law of liberty”, which can be summed up in the double commandment of love and interpreted in accordance with it (cf. Gal 5:13–14, Matt 5:17–20.48, Mark 12:28–32).119 Placing so much emphasis on integrity, the narrator of James engages in the controversy concerning the false but widespread belief in the superiority of acting over listening, which could allegedly be found in some OT writings (Exod 24:3, Lev 18:5, Deut 27:26, Ezek 33:31). By applying the inversion acting – listening, the author of James may elaborate on the sense in which the latter term should be understood. He starts with an introduction where he mentions “hearers who deceive themselves”, those who are satisfied with listening alone. Although he does not make it clear what the deceit consists in, two aspects may be distinguished here. Firstly, the deceit concerns eschatology and soteriology, and the expectations related to judgement and salvation which, in this view, would be the result of simply knowing – hearing – the law. Secondly, the deceit relates to a false image of oneself,120 which entails lack of humility in relation to God and to other people (cf. Matt 7:26–28, Luke 6:47–49, Rom 2:13). The theme of appropriate listening which leads to obeying the law is continued in the form of a parable. The parable is introduced in v. 23 with a conditional sentence involving a chiastic polyptoton that builds the cohesion of vv. 22 and 23: A. ποιηταὶ λόγου “doers of the word” B. ἀκροαταὶ “hearers”; (v. 22) B’. ἀκροατὴς λόγου “hearers of the word” (v. 23) A’ ποιητὴς “doer”.

118 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 147. 119 Ibid., p. 155–158 and fn. 118–120. 120 The idea of a false/illusive image of oneself will be developed in the chapter concerning unhypocritical wisdom; see below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12)

The chiasmus is at the same time a solution of the inversion from v. 22 – in v. 23 we can find the correct sequence of activities: hearing – doing. Moreover, the transition from a general reflection to a parabolic illustration is indicated by a change from the plural to the singular. The verb ἔοικεν ‘to be similar’ is also parabolic and it is one of the expressions – of hapax legomena – so characteristic of James’ parables (cf. James 1:6).121 The main character of the parable is ἀνήρ ‘a certain man’, ‘fellow’, and not, as it is usually the case in evangelical parables ἄνθρωπος τις ‘a man’. When the text is read in a linear manner and is applied to the situation of one particular community, it might be assumed that a model for the narrator was a vain, wealthy man who could afford an object as extravagant in antiquity as a mirror, and who often thoughtlessly admired his own reflection in it.122 In sapiential context, when we take into account the convention of a circular letter and apply the structural approach, the text acquires a more universal character. This universal character of the image used by James is strongly underscored by Timothy B. Cargal who sees here a reference to everyday experience of everyone of us: what can be seen in a mirror does not have much influence on our lives since we immediately forget what we have seen. A contemporary parallel may be, according to Cargal, the experience of looking at the watch: we so quickly forget what is there that it is necessary to have a look at it one more time when somebody asks us what time it is.123 The universalism and every-day character of the image render it difficult to interpret. The ambiguity of the illustration is probably also intended by the author of James. We can seek here the influence of Greek philosophy, the demand to get to know oneself and to learn from one’s own mistakes (cf. Plutarch, Moralia 1:42 B).124 The inverted reflection in the mirror can also be read as the illustration of man’s sinful condition after the fall, when the common, shared optics of God and man disappeared and was replaced by a false, human, sinful perspective contrary to God’s way of looking at things; the revival of common perspective will only be possible in eschatological times (cf. 1 Cor 13:12). What is meant in both cases is the process of self-reflection oriented both ethically or theologically. A similar proposal, though of less anthropological nature, was made by Luke Timothy Johnson who distinguished what was seen (κατανοέω) in the mirror – the world, and what was perceived and recognised (παρακύπτω) as God’s will and law (v. 25).125 Sometimes the mirror is treated as an equivalent of “the word” and/or “the perfect law of liberty”, which

121 The expressions used in ‘classical’ evangelical parables are ὅμοιος (e.g. Matt 13:52, Luke 6:47–49) or ὁμοιωθήσεται (e.g. Matt 7:24–26, 25:1). 122 Cf. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 150. 123 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 103. 124 See: Introduction. 125 L.T. Johnson, The Mirror of Remembrance (James 1:22–25), CBQ 50 (1988), p. 634.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

159

160

The Structural Commentary

can be observed superficially or in depth. We can see here the contrast between what is shallow and transient (the mirror) with what needs consideration and endures (the law): seeing one’s reflection in the mirror and going away results in instant forgetting the way one looks, whereas delving into the law leads to continual remembering it. The opposition is expressed by means of prepositions: static ἐν “in a mirror” ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ and dynamic εἰς “at the law” εἰς νόμον as well as verbs: ‘go away’ ἀπέρχομαι (from the mirror), ‘forget’ (ἐπιλανθάνομαι) in v. 24 and ‘persevere’ (implying – ‘to remember’) παραμένω (in studying the law) in v. 25. Another proposal is made by Sophie Laws who, taking into consideration the meaning of verbs κατἇνοέω w and παρακύπτω, does not treat the description from vv. 23–24 metaphorically but in a literal way. The first one is supposed to signify catching a glimpse, a passing glance at a mirror before leaving home. In James’ parable it would describe the attitude of someone who listens to the word/the law inattentively. The second one, used in the conclusion of the deliberations in v. 25, would signify a profound, thoughtful study.126 But it must be stressed that κατανοέω does not have to carry such superficial connotations – on the contrary, e.g. in Luke 20:23, Rom 4:19, Heb 3:1, 10:24 it signifies ‘contemplation’, ‘thoughtful consideration’, ‘getting to know inside out’, ‘paying attention’. Then, the verb παρακύπτω does not necessarily have to stand in opposition to κατανοέω because it simply means looking. In this way, after inverting the most frequently quoted interpretation of this parable, it is given an existential orientation. The literal understanding of the image of a mirror signifies that even the most careful study of one’s own face in the mirror, contemplation of one’s appearance etc. cannot compare to taking an even cursory look at the law of God. Every glimpse of God’s law, even accidental, has the power to change man who stops being just a “hearer” and becomes the “doer” of “the perfect law, the law of liberty”.127 As usual, the author of James does not indicate which interpretation is more accurate. In the context of wisdom obedient to the law and considerations concerning the integrity of listening, meditating, correct understanding and observing the law, there is no need to, and one even should not, juxtapose listening and study, in the same way as there is no need to contrast the external, general look at the law and the internal, in-depth contemplation of it.128 On the contrary – listening and a general look should be treated as the first step to the contemplation and understanding of the nature of “the word”/“the law of liberty”. The dangers which

126 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 218 also refers here to the basic meaning of the verb παρακύπτω – ‘to lean down’/‘to bend over something’; cf. John 20:11–12, where weeping Mary Magdalene “bent over” to look into the tomb. As a result, she first saw the two angels, and then Jesus who let her recognise him (John 20:12–16). 127 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 85. 128 Cf. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 217.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12)

stem from stopping at the first stage are described in v. 24, they include ignoring the truth about oneself (looking at oneself), what may lead to going away from the law and from God,129 and to forgetting about the situation of man after the fall. In other words – stopping at the first stage means falling into the sin of arrogance resulting from a false image of oneself and forgetting the need to be humble and to constantly repent, so strongly accentuated in the description of humble/perseverant wisdom. The warning is sometimes read in reference to forgetting the covenant, the law or even God himself and his saving works (cf. Deut 4:23, 6:12, 26:13, Ps 119[118]:16, such an association can also be found in Qumran texts, 4Q525).130 The complement “what he looks like” – referring both to the past and the present – clearly indicates the state of sinfulness after the fall, recognised even when we look at “the word”/“the law” only superficially. It seems that in this way the narrator refers to ktiseological connotations initiated in v. 23, and thereby reaches for his favourite pattern reflecting the story of salvation. The element that indicates such connotations is the eye-catching phrase τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως literally ‘the face of existence’ or ‘the face of his birth’. The expression τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως can certainly be interpreted in many different ways – it is most often read allegorically as the real (sinful) nature of man after the fall (cf. James 1:14) or as imago Dei which indicates the way in which man was created by God and the role and function he was called to (Gen 1:26–27); sometimes it is also understood as one’s natural appearance131 or literally as the origin or birth (Hos 2:5, Ezek 4:14, 16:3.4, Wis 7:5–6, cf. Matt 1:18). The ambiguity assumed by the narrator makes all of these associations acceptable, but what comes to the foreground in the context of wisdom obedient to the law are allegorical explanations of anthropological nature. Moreover, the interpretations may be combined, what is done in James by making references to the story of salvation: if we assume that the mirror symbolises the word and the law, then a man studying (hearing) it, discovers the truth about being created in the image of God (imago Dei) and the fact that his nature, corrupted after the fall, virtually obscures the image.132 The one who only listens and stops at this point is a person who perfectly well realises his situation after the fall but goes away and does not want to remember it or to shape his attitude to God and to other people on the basis of this knowledge. Verse 25 is the continuation and, at the same time, the conclusion of the preceding deliberations. As has been mentioned, it is only now that the meaning of “the word”

129 130 131 132

See above – a mirror as the metaphor of the law. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 218. See: T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 102, fn. 29–32. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 151; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 213.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

161

162

The Structural Commentary

from v. 22 is at least party revealed – its synonym is “the law of liberty”.133 The idea of the perfection of the law may be derived from the Old Testament tradition (cf. e.g. Ps 19[18]:8), but calling it “the law of liberty” can only come from deep reflection (cf. Ps 1:2), in-depth meditation and understanding (cf. Gal 5:13–26). Looking at (παρακύπτω) the law and seeing its deepest sense (understanding it) generates the ability to persevere (παραμένω) in it. We may assume that what is meant here is the hermeneutics implied by the commandment to love God and one’s neighbour. As has already been said, the verb παραμένω ‘to remain’/‘to persevere’ (implying ‘to remember’) stands here in opposition to verbs ἀπέρχομαι ‘to leave’ and ἐπιλανθάνομαι ‘to forget’ used in v. 22, which describe the conduct of those who only listen. To underline it, the narrator of James once again uses the phrase synthesizing the demand from v. 22 and the warning from v. 24: οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς γενόμενος ἀλλὰ ποιητὴς ἔργου “being not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts”. Another synonym of “the word” and “the law” can be seen here – ἔργον ‘the act’, suggesting that the character of both “the word” and “the law” is not only static and theoretical but dynamic and practical (cf. the ambiguity and multidimensional nature of the Hebrew word ‫) ׇדׇּבר‬. As has been said, v. 25 also offers the solution of the inversion from v. 23. Now the sequence of activities is given in the correct order: first listening, and then ‘doing’ the law, the latter being preceded by delving into the law and understanding it. In-depth study of the law and knowledge of it is a reference to planting/implanting the word/the law in the heart of man (cf. Jer 31:31–34), which confirms the belief of many commentators that “the word” and “the perfect law of liberty” are the same as “the implanted word” and “the word of truth” from vv. 18 and 21.134 V. 25 ends with an equivocal blessing rooted in the OT (cf. Isa 56:2): οὗτος μακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ ἔσται “he [the one who observes the law] will be blessed in his doing”, which at the same time constitutes a climactic point of the whole composition describing wisdom obedient to the law. The dative structure μακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει may be understood as dativus temporis (‘in/while doing’) as well as dativus commodi (‘due to doing’) – and again both variants have probably been intended by the narrator.135 The way in which this phrase is understood greatly influences the interpretation of the blessing: it can be read eschatologically and soteriologically – “will be blessed [in the end times] due to his actions”, but it can also be understood as a promise that pertains to earthly future: “will be blessed in/while doing/acting”.

133 To discover the different possibilities of understanding of “the law of liberty” see e.g. R.P. Martin, James, p. 51; T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 104. 134 See above. 135 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 87–88.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12)

In the whole fragment, the narrator of James refers to different stages of implanting the word (cf. James 1:18) in human life (from hearing through meditating to understanding) but also to different senses: hearing, seeing, and, while doing and acting, even to the sense of touch. Both methods aim at illustrating integrity. In the same way, as it is impossible to separate listening, thinking, understanding and acting according to the law, it is also not possible to look at man and reduce him to only one of the senses. Separation – and this is a thesis repeated in James a number of times and in numerous ways – leads to double-mindedness, and a man who is double-minded, disintegrated – δίψυχος – is not able to ask for wisdom with faith and does not receive the gift which is necessary to understand and to observe the law (cf. James 1:5–6). To sum up our analysis so far, it must be stated that neither the person who only listens nor the one who acts without thinking may be, according to the author of the Letter of James, called a man endowed with wisdom. Obeying/observing “the word”/“the law” involves integration of listening, thinking, understanding and acting and it is such coherent behaviour that can be treated as the expression of wisdom received from God.136 The topic of integrity is developed in 2:10–11 on the example of the unity of the law given by (one) God. The narrator continues his reflection, using in 2:10 similar verb forms as before – the 3rd person singular, although instead of indicativus like in 1:23–25, he now uses coniunctivus and the whole sentence acquires the character of a gnome. The universality is additionally emphasised by the pronoun ὅστις ‘whoever’. Simultaneously, to strengthen the effect and render the message more dynamic, James abandons the motif of a blessing from 1:25 and opposes guilt to it (2:10.11) thus implying both the judgement and the punishment (all those aspects are encompassed by the adjective ἔνοχος; cf. e.g. Matt 5:21–22, Mark 3:29, 14:64, 1 Cor 11:27).137 At first glance, an equal treatment of violating one commandment and violating the whole law might seem exaggerated to the recipient. Nevertheless, in James 2:10 this is not done for rhetorical but for hermeneutical reasons, and constitutes a direct reference to previous thoughts concerning the inseparability of the stages of submitting to God’s will and following the word of God as well as the indivisibility and integrity of man. Moreover, such reduced or selective application of the Torah would be the evidence of the lack of ability to reflect upon it and to understand it, and this would be the proof of the absence of the gift of wisdom. The general rule (cf. Matt 5:18–19) presented in a gnomic form in the preceding line, known even in the pagan world (cf. the sentence from Seneca’s treatise De beneficiis: “Who has one fault, has them all”), is made more concrete in James 2:11.

136 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 98. 137 Cf. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 112; T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 115.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

163

164

The Structural Commentary

The narrator refers to two commandments “You shall not commit adultery” and “You shall not murder”, and it is not a mistake that they are provided in this order,138 incompatible with the Hebrew text of the Decalogue in Exod 20:13–14, Deut 5:17. When the Letter of James is read in a linear manner, the sequence of these two commandments is explained by the alleged situation of a particular community in which acts of adultery and murder occurred, although the verb φονεύω may be read both literally and metaphorically (cf. James 4:2).139 Nevertheless, there are no clear indicators in the text which would suggest that those two verbs should be treated differently; thus, it seems more probable that both have been used in the same way – either metaphorically or literally. The already mentioned hermeneutics of integrity, dominating in the description of wisdom obedient to the law, as well as the perspective of the commandment of love which sums up the Torah (cf. Rom 13:8–10), allow to look at both demands in a metaphorical way. The fact that – particularly in sapiential literature – murder was understood metaphorically is evidenced, inter alia, by Sir 34:20–22. In the intertestamental period, it was common to interpret both commandments in a metaphorical manner, which may be confirmed by e.g. Matt 5:21–31. In James 2:11, a murder may have a meaning similar to the one suggested in the texts just quoted – it may refer to any act of violation of the commandment to love one’s neighbour. The application of the hermeneutics of integrity makes it impossible to separate the demand to love one’s neighbour from the demand to love God, so the commandment “You shall not commit adultery” should be read metaphorically when it refers to our attitude to God. This approach is fully justified by the practice of depicting unfaithfulness to God as adultery or prostitution (e.g. Hos 2:7, 4:10, Isa 57:3, Jer 5:7, 13:27, Ezek 23:43–44) commonly used in the OT. The primary position of the allusion to the commandment to love God is also meaningful – it shows that the fundamental cause and guarantee for the unity of the Torah summarised in the commandment of love is one Lawmaker – God. To even more powerfully emphasise the integrity of the commandments/the law in 2:11 and to draw the recipients’ attention to it, the narrator uses transition – he appeals to the addressees directly and to each of them individually, making

138 The critical apparatus provides examples of the reversal of the order of commandments in the Letter of James in C 1739. 1852. 2344 (φονεύσης` μὴ μοιχεύσης) and 1448. 1611 (φονεύσης`οὐ μοιχεύσεις) to adjust it to the order in the Hebrew text of Exod 20:13–14; Deut 5:17 (cf. Matt 5:21.27, 19:18, Mark 10:19). It turns out, however, that the sequence used in James 2:11 can be found in at least one of the important manuscripts of the LXX – in the Codex Vaticanus (B). The primacy of the commandment “You shall not commit adultery” can also be found in Luke 18:20 and Rom 13:9. See also: L.T. Johnson, Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James, JBL 101 (1982) no. 3, p. 393. 139 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 217; R.P. Martin, James, p. 70.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is obedient (to the law) (James 1:22–25, 2:10–12)

use of the 2nd person singular. The verbs from the commandments are repeated in a warning expressed by means of a polyptoton: εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύεις, φονεύεις “if you do not commit adultery […] you murder”. In the light of what has been said earlier about the metaphorical meaning of the verbs applied here, the warning should be understood as follows: even if you do not violate the first commandment of love – that concerns God, you still break the second one – concerning your neighbour. The use of indicatives in the conditional sentence suggests that this is modus realis, while praesens indicates constant, on-going violation of one of the commandments. This takes us back to the meditation in James 1:23–24 upon the situation of men after the fall; the final, concluding sentence has a similar character: γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου “you have become [and you are] a transgressor of the [whole] law”. The accusations are followed in 2:12 by the return to forms (imperatives of the 2nd person pl.) and to the content (2:12b) from 1:22. In this way the whole fragment concerning wisdom obedient to the law acquires a well-defined framework and the identity of “the word” and “the law of liberty” are confirmed. The previous demand: “be doers of the word, and not merely hearers”, that is of clearly Semitic provenience, is replaced by an order of Hellenistic origin:140 λαλεῖτε καὶ ποιεῖτε “so speak and so act”. There is no tension here between speaking and acting, on the contrary – both activities seem to complement each other, which confirms a belief expressed earlier that also hearing and doing in 1:22.25 do not stand in opposition to each other, but are complementary and create one whole. Praesens used here suggests that speaking and acting should be continuous, just like hearing and doing, or the prayer for wisdom before. The phrase ὡς διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας μέλλοντες κρίνεσθαι has an obvious eschatological and soteriological orientation. Thus, the meaning of “the law of liberty” can be even more precisely specified, particularly on the basis of deliberations concerning “the word” in 1:18 and 21. If, as has been said before, “the word” in 1:22 can be identified with “the law of liberty” and “the word of truth”, thanks to which man is born from God as well as with “the implanted word”, then, in the same way as “the word of truth” and “the implanted word”, also “the law of liberty” “has the power to save […] souls” (cf. James 1:21b). As has been demonstrated in the analysis of humble and compassionate wisdom, “the implanted word” may be in turn identified with the gospel and with perseverant proclamation of merciful, compassionate God.141 Consequently, it might be stated that the judgement mentioned in 2:12 is actually an act of God’s mercy that brings life/salvation, and giving testimony to it (speaking and acting) results from hearing, meditating and obeying

140 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 267. 141 See above – chap. 2.4.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

165

166

The Structural Commentary

God’s will (the commandments), as described earlier in 1:23–25 and in 2:10–11. The ability to give such an integrated testimony stems from wisdom received from God. Just as in the previous descriptions of the ways in which wisdom manifests itself, also now the objective of the narrator is demonstrating to the recipients the attitudes and the conduct of someone endowed with wisdom obedient to the law in opposition to the demeanour of a person devoid of the gift: Endowed with the gift of wisdom

Devoid of the gift of wisdom

– listens to the word/the law;

– shows unreflective obedience to the word/the law; – is satisfied with listening alone; – is unable to reflect upon the word/the law – James 1:22–25; – is unable to understand the word/the law – James 1:23; – approaches the law in a reduced and/or selective manner – James 2:10–11; – forgets about human situation after the fall – James 1:24;

– meditates upon the word/the law; – understands the word/the law; – obeys the word/the law;

– approaches the word/the law in an integrated manner – James 1:22–25, 2:10–11; – is aware of having been created in the image of God and remembering his situation after the fall – James 1:23–24; – is unable to give testimony in – is able to give testimony to the speech or in action – James 2:12; gospel/to the perfect law of liberty in speech and in action – James 2:12; – judges on the basis of mercy/the law of liberty – James 2:12; – deceives himself on the issue of – expects judgement that will bring judgement and salvation – James life/salvation – James 2:12. 1:22, 2:12.

2.6

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

2:13

For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but he does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or a sister were naked and lacking daily food, 16 and one of you said to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

plenty”, and yet you would not supply them with things their bodies need, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish/senseless person, that faith apart from works is useless? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. 5:4 Thus the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. 5 You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you. 19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, 20 you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering/his erring ways will save his life/soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

While wisdom obedient to the law accentuated the attitude towards the first commandment of love, dealing with the second one only in very general terms, now, in the description of wisdom which is full of mercy μεστὴ ἐλέους, the narrator of James focuses on the practical aspect of the implementation of the second commandment of love. He looks at the question of mercy from the point of view of the story of salvation and thus, as in the previous deliberations, we can distinguish here elements referring to the past, the present and the eschatological future, although they are arranged in an untypical manner because the primary element is a remark concerning judgement. It seems that the element of the past is developed in James’ descriptions quite consistently and chronologically – after the story of creation, of the fall and giving by God the law at Sinai, now there comes the motif of the prophets, implied by intertextual references:142

142 See below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

167

168

The Structural Commentary

The past The present Conduct towards other Teaching of the prophets about mercy – people: A positive aspect: James 2:13b; mercy – James 2:13; Prophetic accusations concerning carefree life consolation/the wish of peace – James 2:16a; – James 5:5a; keeping warm/providing insensitive heart – clothes – James 2:16b; James 5:5b; unfair trials and verdicts feeding – James 2:16c; – James 5:6. paying labourers for their work – James 5:4; refraining from condemning others and sentencing them to death – James 5:6; converting others – James 5:19–20; A negative aspect: lack of mercy – James 2:12; lack of consolation/the wish of peace – James 2:16a; not providing warmth/clothes – James 2:16b; not providing food – James 2:16c; keeping back the wages of the labourers – James 5:4; condemning others and sentencing them to death – James 5:6; leaving the wandering ones without assistance – James 5:19–20.

The future Judgment without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy – James 2:13a; Mercy triumphs over judgment – James 2:13b; Judgment as ‘a day of slaughter’ – James 5:5; Saving the sinner’s soul – James 5:20; Covering a multitude of sins – James 5:20.

The description of wisdom full of mercy starts with an introduction encompassing a warning and a promise. The warning concerns those who do not practice mercy, who do not follow the recommendations of merciful wisdom; the promise in turn has the form of a statement concerning mercy that triumphs over judgment.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

Both utterances have an eschatological character but the second one also acquires a soteriological dimension. Together with James 5:19–20 they set an eschatological and soteriological framework (elements A and A’) for the whole fragment, which is filled with rhetorical questions and statements (B elements) relating to faith without works and with two – clearly specified – examples of acting without mercy (a negative aspect – C1 and C2 ) and with mercy (a positive aspect – C3 ): A. A warning against judgment without mercy (eschatology) and a promise of the triumph of mercy (soteriology) – 2:13; B1 . Works of mercy as the expression of faith and wisdom (a rhetorical question) – 2:14; C1 . An example of lack of mercy (a negative aspect) – 2:15–16; B2 . Acts of mercy as the expression of faith (an answer to the rhetorical question) – 2:17; B3 . Barren faith without works (a rhetorical question) – James 2:20; B4. Dead faith (an answer to the rhetorical question) – James 2:26; C2 . An example of lack of mercy (a negative aspect) – James 5:4–6; C3 . An example of works of mercy (a positive aspect) – James 5:19–20a; A’. Saving the sinner from death and covering a multitude of sins (eschatology and soteriology) – James 5:20b. What can be noticed in this structure, apart from strongly accentuated practical aspects, is an explicit theological and anthropological orientation. The fragment implies that showing mercy, especially towards someone committing sins (James 5:19), should be guided by the example of God’s eschatological mercy indicated already in James 2:13b (cf. Matt 5:7, Luke 6:36). Combined with the practical aspect mentioned above (the negative and positive examples of the works of mercy), the suggestion obviously refers to the double commandment of love which lies behind almost every description of the various manifestations of wisdom in James. Therefore, since God’s mercy overshadows judgment (James 2:13b),143 no one should ever mercilessly instruct or condemn another person (James 2:13a) but should try to convert the one who “wanders from the truth” and errs (James 5:19–20a), in order to preserve life and to cover sins (James 5:20b). In the question-and-answer part, in turn, the integrity of speech and action is strongly accentuated (what refers in a linear manner to James 2:12 and to the appeal to give testimony144 ) as well as the declaration of faith and its manifestation. The whole fragment shows that mercy 143 See above the reflection concerning God who is full on mercy and compassion (James 5:11) – chap. 2.4. 144 See above – chap. 2.5.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

169

170

The Structural Commentary

towards one’s neighbours encompasses both their physical, material, mundane needs and their spirituals needs which go beyond their earthly existence. What is noteworthy in the description of the structure of the whole fragment is a similar form of the elements constituting the framework – 2:13 and 5:19–20, which help to emphasise the most merciful act towards another person – bringing a sinner back from wandering, converting him. Helping in conversion leads to the salvation of the soul from death and to covering sins, which is synonymous with the triumph of mercy. The initial framework has the format of a chiasmus based on repetitive lexis and a play on words: A. “judgment will be without mercy” κρίσις ἀνέλεος B. “to anyone who has shown no mercy” τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος B’. “mercy triumphs” κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος A’. “over judgment” κρίσεως. In the final framework, the chismus which also encompasses v. 19, is a bit more elliptical, particularly in the semantic scope of element A: A. “wanders from the truth” τις ἐν ὑμῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας (committing a sin) B. “conversion” ἐπιστρέψῃ τις αὐτόν B’. “conversion” ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν A’. “from wandering/his erring ways” ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ (salvation and covering the sins σώσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν). Neither giving a consistent testimony nor practising mercy, and in particular converting other people, are possible without the gift of wisdom. Meditation upon wisdom full of mercy begins, as has been mentioned, with a warning against judgment without mercy, which seems to be a summary of Sir 18:3–5. In this way the narrator alludes to sapiential tradition, although there are exegetes who point here to some popular, commonly known truth or statement.145 It was probably the intention of the narrator that the recognition of the intertextual strategy depended on the competence of the recipients of the letter, although revealing the source of the remark concerning judgment without mercy does not influence in any significant way the understanding of the text. What is more important is the identification of references to prophetic literature in the promise of the ultimate triumph of mercy because it makes it possible to place these deliberations

145 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 271.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

in the context of the story of salvation and to interpret from this perspective James 5:4–6, in particular the remarks about the day of slaughter, and about condemnation and sentencing to death of the righteous ones. The prophetic motif has been pointed out earlier, when humble and compassionate wisdom has been discussed: prophets persistently and patiently proclaimed God full of compassion and mercy (James 5:10–11).146 Thus, in the promise of the triumph of mercy over judgment, we can hear the echo of the teaching of prophets, applied also by Jesus himself (Matt 5:7 and par.). Douglas J. Moo draws our attention to the fact of using by the author of James Zech 7:9–10 as an introduction to the presentation of the theme of mercy.147 It shows standards of conduct contrary to those applied by people who do not practise mercy, who do not follow the teaching of prophets and – in broader terms – do not observe the law and God’s will (cf. also James 5:4–6). The phrase “mercy triumphs over judgement” may thus be interpreted on three levels – as an eschatological promise to those who show mercy, as an order to follow God’s example in our conduct towards people who ought to be judged (this problem is solved in 5:19–20 where conversion is discussed), and finally as a call for showing mercy in everyday life (this will be developed in James 2:15–16 and in James 5:4–6). V. 14 marks a clear transition between the initial statement and the pragmatic part which consists of elements of a diatribe148 and of practical examples. It is marked by the apostrophe ἀδελφοί μου (my brothers), used as a transition, and a change of a statement into a rhetorical question. The central question can be paraphrased as: What eschatological good results from separating faith and works? In the description of wisdom obedient to the law a great deal of attention has been paid to the integrity of listening, meditating, understanding and observing God’s will revealed in the Torah. Now the narrator continues the reflection on the subject of integrity of faith and works, which create an indivisible whole because they represent two main aspects of human activity: internal – volitive and motivational (faith) and external – practical (works). The works ἔργα are treated on the one hand as the demand of the Torah but on the other hand they are filtered through the commandment of love.

146 See above – chap. 2.4. 147 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 271. 148 When the text is read in a linear manner and rhetorical devices are analysed, there usually emerges a question regarding the identity of characters involved in the dialogue. Are they some imaginary critics of James’ theories or is it a real adversary (sometimes Paul is mentioned in this context), or maybe the objective is just the enumeration of different views? There are also suggestions that the author’s interlocutor is not his opponent but his ally and he asks the questions only to strengthen James’ thesis from 2:17; see: different theories quoted in P.H. Davids, James, p. 121–124; J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 209; H. Neitzel, Eine alte crux interpretum im Jakobusbrief 2,18, ZNW 73 (1982), p. 291–293.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

171

172

The Structural Commentary

The expression ἔργα μὴ ἔχειν “not have works” can be quite frequently found in intertestamental literature (e.g. in 2 Bar 14:12 or in 4 Ezra 7:77, 8:22, 13:2) and it usually means confirmation of the righteousness of a certain issue by means of works or doing what is necessary and just in a certain situation.149 The message of James seems to be more radical. The objective here is not the confirmation of the verity (righteousness) of faith (the issue), although this is the way in which the conditional in the first question is often interpreted,150 but showing the abstract and unreal nature of the opposition between having faith and not having works. Statements which are real for James are: to have faith means to have works, and not to have works means not to have faith. As before, when the narrator objected to looking at man through the prism of isolated senses, also now he is opposed to separating what is internal from what is external. He justifies he objection eschatologically since his previous considerations concerning judgment and mercy may be treated as the complementation of the phrase Τί τὸ ὄφελος ‘what good’/‘what advantage’/‘what help’ and understood as salvation itself. This eschatological and soteriological orientation is confirmed by the second question: μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν “Can faith save him?” The verb σῴζω can be translated here in accordance with its basic meaning, initially carrying theological connotations: ‘to save’/‘to rescue’. So the implicit contextual sense of the idea expressed in the second sentence is saving/rescuing from judgment described in 2:13. The answer to this question must be negative: faith cannot save anyone from the judgment without mercy because it cannot be separated from works; if it is separated from works, it is dead (cf. 2:17). What is hidden here is a holistic anthropological assumption – man does not consist only of what is internal (represented by faith) but also of what is external (represented by works). And even if we treat the verb σῴζω as theologically-oriented saving, it has to be remembered that both in Jewish and in Christian theology salvation encompasses the whole man and does not involve only his soul or only his body (cf. James 2:26). The absurdity of such a separation is illustrated by the example from James 2:15–16 which develops the motif from Prov 3:28 and refers to Isa 58:7 (cf. Matt 25:35–36.38.42). Close relationship between this illustration and the previous questions is demonstrated by the use of the same apodosis (a consequent): τί τὸ ὄφελος. Conditional sentences are used here, too: in v. 15 it is con. praes. (ὑπάρχωσιν), which suggests the iterative nature of the situation; in v. 16 those are con. aor. (εἴπῃ and μὴ δῶτε) which indicate modus eventualis rather than a description

149 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 150. 150 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 121; see: D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 272, who calls it ‘bogus faith’. The presence of con. praes. in the protasis (the antecedent) suggests either modus eventualis or highlighting a recurrent situation. Again, the narrator does not settle the matter and offers two options, although primacy should be given to the iterative meaning.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

of a real situation. It may be assumed that lack of clothing and hunger belong to the sphere of everyday problems but sending the naked and the hungry away with a good word only but without supplying their needs is not common practice but a certain improvisation of the narrator that highlights the absurdity of such conduct, particularly in a community which has a long tradition of helping the needy (Acts 11:29, 24:17, 1 Cor 16:1–3, 2 Cor 8:1–15, 9:1–15, Gal 6:10) and whose members call each other brothers and sisters (the feeling of community of the recipients is indicated by the expression τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν “one of you”). It seems that the fact of mentioning both “a brother” and “a sister” in need does not only serve here as an inclusive remark (all the more that in other parts of the letter the author uses only the word ‘brothers’ as an apostrophe). Its aim is strengthening of the dialectic message ‘both… and…’ and eliminating the alternative ‘either…or’. In the same way as obedience to the law is based both on listening and on meditating, both on understanding and on observing God’s will, and among the needy there are both men and women (and not either men or women), faith consists of both internal and external aspects (and not either internal or external). It should also be emphasised that describing this abstract situation, the narrator does not discredit the necessity to support the needy ones with a good word or a blessing. For that reason the verbs θερμαίνεσθε “keep warm” and χορτάζεσθε “eat plenty” in v. 16, which illustrate the answer to the coming of brothers and sisters γυμνοὶ καὶ λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς “naked and lacking daily food”, are accompanied by a typical Jewish blessing, perceived positively151 ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ “go in peace”. The blessing has a long tradition (cf. e.g. Judg 18:6, 1 Sam 1:17, 20:42); it is at the same time the expression of the belief in God’s providence (it is not a coincidence that the verbs “keep warm” and “eat plenty” are used in the passivum theologicum form and point to God as the one who satisfies all needs; cf. Matt 6:25–34), the expression of kindness and a farewell. Its primary position in v. 16 emphasises on the one hand the absurdity of the situation described here – starting a dialogue with a farewell, and on the other hand it draws attention to needs other than the material ones which can be satisfied with appropriate behaviour and words (the latter will be described in more detail in 5:19–20a). But the blessing cannot replace real help, and the real assistance should be provided with the awareness that it is God who is the giver of all goods and that a man who provides help really pursues God’s will. V. 17 is basically the answer to the question asked in v. 14: “Can faith save you?” And the answer obviously negative: such faith cannot save [from judgment]. The verse helps to expose another meaning of the verb σῴζω in the question from v. 14. In light of what the narrator has said so far about the separation of faith

151 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 119.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

173

174

The Structural Commentary

and works, it turns out that “faith by itself ” cannot save life (σῴζω) because it is dead. Attention is drawn here to two expressions: ἡ πίστις καθ’ ἑαυτήν ‘faith by itself ’/‘faith alone’ and ἡ πίστις νεκρά dead faith. Both are synonymous to each other and complemented with a conditional sentence of the modus eventualis type: ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα “if it has no works”. Dead faith is ‘alone’, separated from works. The separation is underlined by the preposition κατά ‘with’, ‘by’ combined with the pronoun ἑαυτή. Focused on “itself ”, such faith has no reference either to God or to other people, it contemplates itself and creates a false, one-dimensional image of a believer who has stopped at the stage of speaking about faith (James 2:14), but has not experienced it and has not fulfilled it by obeying the commandment of love. Faith separated from works is static, it lacks dynamics that comes from acting. The lack of dynamics in turn creates the impression of lifelessness and for this reason such inactive faith, isolated from deeds, has been called “dead” (cf. the lack of activeness as the synonym of lifelessness in Rom 7:8, and especially in Heb 6:1 and 9:14, where an apparently opposite situation is shown – dead actions). The question of inactivity, lack of dynamics and lifelessness not integrated with the works of faith, outlined here in general terms, are again addressed in vv. 20 and 26. V. 20 has the form of a rhetorical question. Special attention is drawn here to an extremely pointed apostrophe ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ “you foolish/senseless man”. When the text is read in a linear manner, it is usually interpreted as an address to an imaginary diatribic interlocutor. In the structural approach, it might be seen as a rapid transition whose aim is to shock the recipient and to strongly accentuate the narrator’s main thesis concerning the necessity of looking at faith and works in an integrated way without separating these two elements. The narrator’s growing impatience can also be sensed here, since he abandons conditional structures and visibly provokes the recipient. The adjective κενός ‘empty’, used in the apostrophe, may be interpreted in different ways and translated depending on the context (e.g. Judg 9:4, 11:4 – ‘thoughtless’, ‘reckless’). In James 2:20 it is usually translated as “foolish/senseless” in an ironic opposition to the verb γινώσκω ‘to know’, ‘to get to know’, ‘to understand’.152 The whole sentence should thus be understood as an implied statement: It is foolish to try to understand what faith without works is.153 In addition, the foolishness and absurdity of such an attempt is underlined by the play on words between the noun ἔργα “works” and the adjective ἀργή154 ‘inactive’/‘useless’/‘fruitless’ used in refer-

152 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 128; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 242–243. 153 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 129 and fn. 124. 154 In a A C2 P Y 5. 33. 81. 307. 436. 442. 642. 1448. 1611. 1735. 1852. 2344. 2492 instead of ἀργή there appears νεκρά – a variant harmonised with James 2:17 and 26; and in P74 and ff the variant – κενή harmonised with the apostrophe ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

ence to faith (cf. Matt 20:3.6). This pertains to the lack of activity as the synonym of lifelessness in v. 17. The structural approach makes it possible to ascribe a more literal meaning to the adjective κενός and to link this utterance to examples from 2:15–16, reversing the roles of the donator and the beneficiary. An empty (in an external sense) man would be someone who lacks clothing and food, and who seeks help. It is the recipient who is supposed to put himself in this position and to experience on his own what faith without works actually means. Hence, the intention of the rhetorical question, in which we can sense irritation and mockery, can be shown as a provocation and a warning: Empty (left without nothing to live on) man, do you want to find out that faith without works is useless? The answer suggested here is obviously negative. V. 26 once again raises the subject of dead faith. This time the narrator reaches for an anthropological argument implied earlier and now quoted explicitly: “as the body without the spirit is dead” (cf. Gen 2:7, 6:17, 7:15, Ps 51[50]:13, Luke 8:55, 23:46), “so faith without works is also dead”. Thus, he confirms the earlier intuition of the recipients that separating the two complementary elements results in the death of the whole and that works are the element which makes faith dynamic, active, alive (vv. 17 and 20). In other words – faith, which is not accompanied by works, ceases to exist, so the author of James is convinced that such a phenomenon as faith without works does not exist.155 This is why in the description of this potential possibility he uses conditionals of the modus eventualis type, which – as has been shown – emphasise the absurdity of the situations described in the text. To conclude our reflection so far, it is possible to say that separating faith from works results in fact in the destruction of faith and faith is, as James believes, indispensable when one asks for wisdom (James 1:5). Two separate elements bring to mind double-mindedness (δίψυχος) that prevents man from receiving the gift of wisdom which, in turn, is necessary to show mercy towards other people. Further, mercy that is understood in a limited, one-sided manner, either only in material or only in spirituals terms, does not bring the expected eschatological good – it does not save one from “judgment […] without mercy” and does not help to experience God’s mercy that “triumphs over judgment”.

155 The mutual dependence, activeness and invigoration of faith thanks to works was very well grasped by M. Luther in The Preface to the Epistle to the Romans: “[…] it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith; and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises; it has already done them, and is always at the doing of them. He who does not these works is a faithless man. He gropes and looks about after faith and good works, and knows neither what faith is nor what good works are […]”. M. Luther, Prefaces to the Books of the Bible, http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/ NEW1luther_b7.htm [accessed: 15.08.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

175

176

The Structural Commentary

In the subsequent part of the reflection on wisdom full of mercy, the author of James comes back to the initial thought (James 2:13ab), gives examples of the lack of mercy derived mainly from broadly understood Old Testament tradition, and finally – reaching back to the prophetic tradition – he shows the vision of “judgment […] without mercy”. On the one hand, he warns the recipients not to act without mercy, and on the other hand, in the light of what has been said, he makes them aware of the fact that if they act mercilessly, they actually do not have faith and need conversion. This part of the reflection upon wisdom full of mercy is initiated by the narrator in 5:4 in a prophetic spirit (the characteristic particle ἰδοὺ) with the warning against keeping back the wages. The descriptions here and in the following verses are usually seen as references to specific problems and behaviour of the wealthy members of the community156 to which the Letter of James was addressed. Nevertheless, the assumption that the narrator makes use of Old Testament images and does not describe reality makes the message more universal, which in turn fits into the convention of a circular letter. And although this situation seems to be much more probable than the ones described in James 2:15–16 with the help of modus eventualis, still, the network of connections with the OT is in James 5:4–6 so dense that it is hard to assume it is just accidentally similar to a specific situation of one particular community. Almost each significant element of v. 4 has its origin in Old Testament texts. The remark about ὁ μισθὸς τῶν ἐργατῶν τῶν ἀμησάντων τὰς χώρας ὑμῶν “the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields” brings to mind associations with the order to pay the wages to labourers and a warning not to exploit anyone (Lev 19:13, Deut 24:14–15, Jer 22:13). The metaphorical ‘cry’ of the wages and αἱ βοαὶ τῶν θερισάντων εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου σαβαὼθ εἰσεληλύθασιν “the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts” are reminiscent of the complaints of the chosen people and cries for help, the groaning of the just ones (e.g. Exod 2:23, 1 Sam 9:16, Ps 17[16]:6, 18[17]:7), the image of a field and crying is on the one hand a reference to the metaphor from Job 31:38, and on the other hand to the story of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:10), which immediately puts the field owners in the role of Cain and the exploited workers in the role of innocent Abel. The expression κυρίου σαβαωθ ‘the Lord of hosts’/‘Yahweh Sabaoth’ (Isa 6:3) comes from prophetic and liturgical tradition, and the image of God hearing the complaints is a clear allusion to the phrase derived from Isa 5:9: ἠκούσθη γὰρ εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου σαβαωθ. Similarly to the LXX, James also does not translate Hebrew ‫ְצׇבאו ֺת‬, but transcribes it. Evoking the image of God in his glory and majesty on the one hand serves as a reminder that he is the Lord of the whole world and takes care of his creation,

156 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 473; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 390.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

and on the other hand it is a perfect transition to the presentation of the vision of eschatological judgment over those who not only refuse to show mercy but also act in a merciless way. What is noteworthy in the image is the use of the ind. praes. form of the verb κράζει “cry” and of the ind. perf. of the verb εἰσεληλύθασιν “have reached”. The first one describes an activity which has not been finished, which is continuous, while the second one illustrates an activity which has not only been finished but whose consequences still last. This means that before the aggrieved ones finish bringing their complaints to God, he has already heard them and has duly judged the wrongdoers. This stands in stark contrast to human unfair judgments depicted in James 5:6. The first example of a merciless treatment of other people quoted here is their exploitation. In 5:4 the central part of the accusation is the participium ἀπεστερημένος “[wages] which you kept back by fraud”157 (cf. Mark 10:19, 1 Cor 6:7–8, 7:5, 1 Tim 6:5) which additionally suggests acting to the detriment of the labourers, cheating and theft. This accusation in turn – on account of lexical references to Mal 3:5 (ἀποστεροῦντας μισθὸν μισθωτοῦ) – creates an impression that those who kept the wages of the labourers by fraud are also guilty of the oppression of orphans and widows, of robbing foreigners of their rights, and maybe even of sorcery, perjury or adultery, all of these being a clear proof of the lack of respect for God. Accusations are continued in v. 5. The narrator also here follows the prophetic convention, using images known from utterances of the prophets. Guilt is described by two synonymous verbs τρυφάω ‘to live carelessly’ and σπαταλάω ‘to live in luxury’, both in the 2nd person pl. ind. aor. act., which, along with the verb τρέφω ‘to feed’, ‘to fatten’, ‘to gorge oneself ’ also used in the 2nd person pl. ind. aor. act. form a grammatical alliteration and a homoioteleutic assonance of the same kind – a rhyme (ἐτρυφήσατε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐσπαταλήσατε, ἐθρέψατε). The accumulation of aorists can be discussed on at least two levels related to the prophetic style. Firstly – on the level of the sound as an imitation of an oral utterance, and secondly – on the morphological and semantic level as the implementation of the eschatological and apocalyptic prophetic tendency to depict the present as the past that has already been judged (cf. the use of praesens and perfectum in v. 4). Both verbs are perceived negatively, as they are supposed to describe behaviour which is not accepted by the author, although τρυφάω may also have a neutral meaning or even positive connotations, like in Neh 9:25, where it describes a prosperous life led by the Israelites after the conquest of Canaan (cf. Isa 66:11, where it is part of a metaphor describing the future glory of Jerusalem). The verb is used in a negative sense in

157 In the important manuscripts a B*, it is replaced by the less expressive participium ἀφυστεπημένος ‘[wages] which were kept back, suspended’. In the NT it would be a hapax legomenon, hardly ever used in the LXX, either – only in Neh 9:20 and Sir 14:14.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

177

178

The Structural Commentary

the New Testament (e.g. Luke 7:25, 2 Pet 2:13) and it seems this is the direction followed by the narrator of James. In order that the recipient, particularly the one who is able to decode and reconstruct the architexts which create this multidimensional imagery, has no doubts that the intention here is to condemn, there is another verb added – σπαταλάω which implies sensuous pleasures and which is unequivocally negative although it is rarely used in biblical literature (Ezek 16:49 where the inhabitants of Sodom are accused of the same deeds as the ones described in James 5:5 and 2:15–16: carefree life and never helping the poor and needy). In early Christian writing it can be found in The Epistle of Barnabas 10:3158 or in The Shepherd of Hermas (64:1.4159 ; cf. also 65:3–5). The eschatological context of the same expressions applied in James and in The Shepherd of Hermas is probably not accidental160 as it indicates the widespread use of such a description in the first century. In James 5:5 the eschatological orientation of the whole illustration has been underlined by the adverbial ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς “on the earth”, what differentiates vertically the disgraceful earthly past of “anyone who has shown no mercy” and prefigures the eschatological judgment over him in the world to come,161 proclaimed already in James 2:13 as the one “without mercy”. A synonym of the carefree life in luxury is to a certain extent the expression ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας “you have fattened your hearts” which opens up new interpretative possibilities, whereas ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς “a day of slaughter” is the equivalent of the judgment day. Both “a day of slaughter” and ‘slaughter’ itself are typically prophetic concepts used to indicate God’s anger, judgment and punishment (e.g. Obad 10, Zech 11:4.7, Isa 30:25, 34:2.6, 65:12, Jer 12:3, 15:3, 50:27 = 27:27 in the LXX; Ezek 21:15).162 Similar imagery and combination of wealth, deceit, iniquity and lack of mercy that will be punished can also be found in intertestamental literature, e.g. in the apocalyptic 1 En 94:8–9, 97:8–10, 98:10, 99:15–16. Thus, the

158 “[…] Thou shalt not cleave […] to such men who are like unto swine; that is, when they are in luxury they forget the Lord […]” The Epistle of Barnabas, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http://www. earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html [accessed: 16.08.2019]. 159 “Whether, Sir […] they that live in self-indulgence and are deceived undergo torments Turing the same length of time as they live in self-indulgence and are deceived? […] The time of the self indulgence and deceit is one hour. But an hour of the torment hath the power of thirty days. If then one live in self indulgence and be deceived for one Day, and be tormented for one Day, the Day of the torment is equivalent to a whole year. For as many days then as a man lives in self-indulgence, for so many years is he tormented” The Shepherd of Hermas, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http://www. earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html [accessed: 16.08.2019]. 160 See: Introduction. 161 See: S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 396; some scholars believe that James 5:5 refers to the events in Jerusalem in the year 70, interpreted as the judgment and punishment for the impious demeanour of the rich, see also D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 477 fn. 7 and 8. 162 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 395; S. Laws, Commentary, p. 203–204; P.H. Davids, James, p. 178.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

earlier suggestion and intuition that “a day of slaughter” can be understood as the equivalent of judgment without mercy from James 2:13 is confirmed. Fattening the hearts in turn which, as has been mentioned, is a metaphorical synonym of life in luxury, can be seen as the loss of sensitivity and sloth that confines, does not allow to show mercy and to act mercifully. James 5:6 comes back to judicial implications and connotations introduced earlier. The verse starts with the verb καταδικάζω used, like the verbs in James 5:5, in the 2nd person pl. ind. aor. and usually translated as “you have condemned”. The narrator, describing the treatment of “the righteous one”, preserves the prophetic style and imagery (Isa 3:14–15, Amos 2:6, 5:12, 6:12, Mic 2:2.6–9, 3:2.9–11) and adheres to sapiential concepts (e.g. Wis 2:10–20 and 1 En 96:8: “Woe unto you, O powerful people! You who coerce the righteous with your power, the day of your destruction is coming! In those days, at the time of your condemnation, many and good days shall come for the righteous ones”163 ). The examples of Old Testament texts describing oppression of the righteous ones, and particularly the lexis applied there: κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε “you have condemned and murdered” read both literally and metaphorically allow us to assume that the warning in the Letter of James does not refer only to those who sue others but also to those who unfairly judge, condemn and execute sentences. This stands in stark contrast to the righteous divine judgment, implied in v. 4. It seems that the most enigmatic element of this description is the figure of “the righteous one” δίκαιος. Although his identity has not been specified, the use of a definite article in front of the adjective might suggest that the author has a particular person in mind. Christocentric Christian hermeneutics notices here the person of Christ to whom allude Old Testament prophecies about the righteous and suffering servant of Yahweh (Isa 53:2–11, Jer 23:5–6, Zech 9:9164 cf. Acts 3:14, 4:27, 7:52, 8:32–35, 22:14, 1 Pet 1:19, 3:18, 1 John 2:1, 3:7 Rev 5:6).165 Intertestamental literature also uses the term “righteous” in reference to the Messiah although it does not explicitly identify him with Jesus, e.g. 1 En. 38:2: “And when the Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the righteous […]” and 53:6: “And after this the Righteous and Elect One shall cause the house of his congregation to appear”. Some commentators, who consider the Letter of James to be an anonymous text written after the death of James the Just, connect the term ‘righteous’ with the figure of James himself and with his martyrdom;166 still others, with all Christian

163 The Book of Enoch, https://www.yahwehswordarchives.org/book-of-enoch/hanoch_enoch_096. htm [accessed: 16.08.2019]. 164 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 398. 165 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 250. 166 R.P. Martin, James, p. 182; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 398, see: Introduction.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

179

180

The Structural Commentary

martyrs.167 However, such specific identifications do not seem to be very probable, especially in the context of the prophetic style and borrowings. Most probably, the term ‘righteous’ has here – just as in prophetic and sapiential literature – a collective character and refers to those who obey God’s law, fulfil his will, and who have fallen victim to the wicked and merciless behaviour of the rich (Wis 2:10–20).168 This would mean that the synonym of the righteous one, like in sapiential literature, is the one who has received the gift of wisdom. His death may be understood both literally (Wis 2:17–20) and metaphorically (Sir 34:21–22).169 The argument for metaphorical understanding, especially in case of the structural approach, may be the reference to 2:15–16 that, in the light of the verses from the Wisdom of Ben Sira, also describe a murder. The literal understanding might in turn be indirectly indicated by the addition about lack of resistance at the end of James 5:6. The phrase – ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον, οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν is usually translated as: “[you have] murdered the righteous one; who does not resist you”. What draws our attention is the change of grammatical tenses: the first predicate has the form of ind. aor., the second one – of ind. praes. This makes the text sound incoherent but also offers an opportunity to translate it in a different way, all the more that the second clause does not contain any subject. Naturally, this is “the righteous one” who is treated as the implied subject of the second clause, which – as has been shown above – makes it possible to identify him with the suffering servant of Yahweh who does not resist injustice. However, if “the righteous one” is seen as the representation of all those who are subject to merciless treatment, in particular those listed in 5:4, and their cries have been heard by God, then the vision presented by James becomes logical, coherent and very natural: defraudation of wages results in the need to justify the fact of keeping back the money → the justification of one’s unfair behaviour entails searching for an imaginary guilt in the victim → the imaginary guilt of the victim is a pretext for an unjust accusation and lawsuit → the unjust lawsuit ends with an unjust conviction → the convict does not protest, does not resist anybody, because he has no means to appeal against the judgment. However, the subject of the second clause οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν may be reconstructed as the negative pronoun ‘no one’. Then, the translation of the whole phrase would be a statement You have killed the righteous one. No one can resist you170 or a question: Can no one resist you? In the second case, it would be a rhetorical question and the assumed answer to it would be: God resists/objects to such be-

167 168 169 170

S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 399. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 204; P.H. Davids, James, p. 179. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 184; P.H. Davids, James, p. 179. Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 184.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

haviour171 , which perfectly well corresponds with James 5:4 and the description of the anticipative actions of God who hears the complaints and passes the judgement on the merciless ones. The negative examples are followed in 5:19–20 by the description of conduct full of mercy and its consequences, very different from the ones described above. In case of structural reading, this description should be combined with the introduction to the presentation of wisdom full of mercy in James 2:13 and the triumph of mercy over judgement. In order to draw the attention of the recipients to a narrative perspective different from the one applied so far, a transitive apostrophe Ἀδελφοί μου “my brothers” has been used. In formal terms, the pronoun in the 2nd person pl (ἐν ὑμῖν “among you”) might serve as the link to previous deliberations; in semantic terms – the link is provided by axiology (the negative assessment of the behaviour described in James 5:4–6 and the fact of calling it πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας wandering far “from the truth”). An additional indicator of the connection between 5:4–6 and 5:19–20 is the dominance of the judicial motif and imagery derived from the Book of Wisdom. It goes without saying that the practices described in 5:4–6 are assessed by the narrator in negative terms and he believes that they are subject to God’s judgement. James 1:20 also suggests that any attempts at stepping into God’s position of authority and angry endeavours at doing earthly justice to the merciless ones172 are negatively evaluated. Human anger replacing justice – even when it seems justified – is equal to merciless conduct towards those who wander. The author does not specify who the wandering one from 5:19 and 20 is or what his error consists in; we only know that he belongs to the same community to which the recipients belong (regardless of the reception level) but, as has been suggested above, the structural approach makes it possible to identify the wandering person with anybody who acts in a merciless manner. Now the sense of the use of such a dense network of Old Testament associations is revealed – they help to see in wandering from the truth each human refusal to fulfil God’s will. This in turn helps to understand the meaning of “the truth” in James 5:19173 and of the erring ways in James 5:20. Both terms undoubtedly refer to Wis 5:6 and to self-accusations concerning πλανήθημεν ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ ἀληθείας ‘wondering’/‘straying away from the truth’. The context of Wis 5:6 strongly resembles the image generated on the basis of structural reading or, more precisely, its continuation: the righteous one, treated without mercy but supported by God, will stand up boldly and face those who had oppressed him, thus bringing them to penitential reflection (Wis 5:1–8). Hence, truth involves merciful behaviour 171 L.T. Johnson, The Letter of James, p. 305. 172 See above – chap. 2.3. 173 Some manuscripts – inter alia P47 a 33. 81. 218. 2464, lectionaries, Armenian and Georgian translations harmonise vv. 19 and 20 and add τῆς ὁδοῦ (in front of ἀληθείας).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

181

182

The Structural Commentary

towards other people; this is the implementation – due to the gift of wisdom – of God’s will expressed in the commandments and summed up in the commandment of love. Wandering from the (path of) truth and following erring ways is a merciless act. Fulfilling the commandment of love, in particular with reference to other people (although James’ hermeneutics of integrity does not allow it to separate the love of one’s neighbours from the love of God), is in turn an external aspect of faith (cf. Gal 5:6), a factor that makes it alive and dynamic. Those dependencies lead us to the integrity of faith and works, accentuated in the first part of the reflection (James 2:14–17.20.26), which both constitute the understanding of truth derived from the Jewish tradition174 – things that we know and the way we live.175 Wandering from the truth is described with the Greek verb πλανάω ‘to wander’, ‘to lead astray’, ‘to delude’, ‘to be misled’. It exposes both the active and the passive aspect of wandering, a departure which may be less or more conscious or deliberate (cf. James 1:16, Matt 18:12–13, 22:29, 24:5.11.24, 2 Tim 3:13, Titus 3:3, 2 Pet 2:15). The use of con. aor. pass. even more powerfully underscores the passive aspect – ‘if one of you is led astray from truth’. The narrator does not specify who the initiator of the misleading is but the context of James 1:16, where the verb πλανάω is also used, suggests that what is meant is being mislead by one’s desires. This unequivocally indicates that the reasons for wandering from the truth, which results in lack of mercy and merciless treatment of other people, should be sought within man, in the inclinations of human nature tainted by sin after the fall, and not outside. If lack of mercy towards others is seen as departure from the truth, then coming back to it requires conversion. It is described in vv. 19 and 20 with the verb ἐπιστρέφω which can be understood in several ways. In literal terms, it simply means ‘coming back’, ‘returning’, which perfectly well fits the context of the way and wandering towards death. Coming back would thus mean going the opposite way – towards life (cf. 5:20 and Wis 1:12). This overlaps with another meaning of the verb ἐπιστρέφω – ‘to get down to work’ which again strongly emphasises the need to integrate faith and action. If, as a result of wandering from the truth, faith separated from works is no longer alive, is dead, then conversion/coming back is synonymous with taking invigorating action, restoration of the integrity of faith and works and heading towards life. Finally, Ἐπιστρέφω implies reflection upon previous merciless behaviour and showing repentance, which in turn brings to mind the already quoted context of Wis 5:1–8. Two verbs with opposite meanings πλανηθῇ and ἐπιστρέψῃ in v. 19 are used in con. aor. and constitute the protasis (the antecedent) of the conditional sentence. In this way, the return to the idea from James 2:14–17 is formally indicated. The

174 See: D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 542. 175 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 454.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of mercy (James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6.19–20)

connection is even more strongly underlined by the lexical reference in the apodosis (the consequent) in James 5:20, where the same verb is employed which has been used in the provocative question from James 2:20 – γινώσκω (in 5:20 the form of an imp. praes. for the 3rd person singular suggests the permanence and repetitiveness of the knowledge offered here). Therefore, the last verse of the letter can be regarded as the continuation of the answer to the question: “Do you want to be shown/to get to know/to understand that faith without works is barren”? The first answer – James 2:26 – has taken into consideration the absurdity of the situations described and, referring to anthropological argumentation, it allowed the recipient to realise the lifelessness of faith without works. The answer in James 5:20, built on oppositions, shows the way to saving the soul from death and covering a multitude of sins, but it may only happen after turning one’s back on the absurd attempts to separate faith and works. It can now be clearly seen that putting faith to death, separating it from the acts of mercy, is identified with wandering and heading towards death. Death θάνατος has a metaphorical meaning here in which the eschatological aspect is also included – this is eternal death (cf. Prov 2:18, 13:14, 14:12, James 1:15), as in James 1:15. The reference to James 1:15 is not accidental – there, as here, death and sin are shown side by side as the effect of succumbing to desire. Now the narrator claims that, thanks to conversion/turning back from the erring ways, death and sin may be overcome. The phrase ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν is very ambiguous because it is not clear to whom the second pronoun αὐτοῦ refers. The meaning of the utterance changes, depending on whether it is ascribed to the converted person or to the one that converts. In the first option, it is the converted person who is saved from death: “whoever brings back a sinner from wandering/his erring ways will save his life/soul from death”. In the case of the second variant, the converting person will be blessed with salvation: “whoever has brought the sinner from wandering/his erring ways will save his own soul from death”.176 The phrases ‘to save the soul’ and ‘to cover sins’ are sometimes separated; the first one is then associated with the sinner, and the second one with the person who converts.177 This, however, particularly in the context of James’ hermeneutics of integrity, does not seem to be acceptable as it deprives the whole phrase of complementarity, so characteristic of James. Lack

176 The critical apparatus provides more variants – in P74vid B 1611 ff there is a phrase ἐκ θανάτου αὐτοῦ (from his death) which allows to treat the pronoun “his soul” in the same way and to assume that it refers to the converted person; the variant ἐκ θανάτου “[will save his soul] from death” that appears, inter alia, inY 81. 442.642. 1175. 1243. 1448. 1852. 2492 suggests that the beneficiary of salvation is the person who helps the sinner to convert. 177 P.H. Davids, James, p. 200–201; R.P. Martin, James, p. 220; T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 198.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

183

184

The Structural Commentary

of precision and ambiguity should be again regarded as deliberate. They make it possible to see the beneficiary both in the person who is brought back from his erring ways and in the one who helps him to come back from wandering (cf. Ezek 3:21), who has shown mercy and for this reason in the end times will be treated with mercy which triumphs over judgement (James 2:13). We can also see here an allusion to James 2:15–16 and to the question of what brings (eschatological) good? The answer is clear: the act of mercy towards the wandering one, which means persuading him to abandon his (merciless) behaviour and which brings eschatological and soteriological good both to the subject and the object of these actions. In conclusion, it has to be once again noted that the narrator of James looks at wisdom full of mercy from the perspective of the story of salvation, of the commandment of love and he applies here the hermeneutics of integrity. Thus, he warns the recipients in many different ways against separating faith (associated with the first commandment of love) and acts of mercy towards other people (associated with the second commandment). The isolation of these elements leads to the death of faith but also to death in the eschatological sense, because the isolation of faith from works is understood in James as a departure from the truth. Describing specific ways of manifesting mercy, the narrator uses both negative examples (James 2:15–16, 5:4–6) and positive examples (James 5:19–20). The final position of the latter is not coincidental – converting people, as the highest act of mercy, synthesises all preceding illustrations and makes the recipients realise that mercy encompasses both the material and the spiritual sphere. On the basis of descriptions in James 2:13–17.20.26, 5:4–6 and 5:19–20, the characteristics of a person endowed with wisdom full of mercy and the person devoid of the gift may be presented as follows:

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

Endowed with the gift of wisdom acting mercifully; having lively, useful faith integrated with works; sensitive to the spiritual needs of other people (comfort/peace) – James 2:16a; sensitive to the material needs of other people (clothing, food, wages); honest; righteous; not paying attention to wealth, pleasure, luxury; converting another person – James 5:19–20a; expecting mercy at judgement – James 2:13c; saving his own soul or that of his neighbour – James 5:20b; contributing to the covering of sins – James 5:20c.

2.7

Devoid of the gift of wisdom acting without mercy – James 2:13; having dead, useless faith, not integrated with works – James 2:14.17.20; not sensitive to the spiritual needs of other people; insensitive to the material needs of other people – James 2:15.16b; 5:4; dishonest – James 5:4; not righteous – James 5:6; paying too much attention to wealth, pleasure, luxury – James 5:5; judging and excluding a wandering person; judged without mercy – James 2:13b; indifferent to a wandering neighbour; not saving his own soul or that of his neighbour; not contributing to the covering of sins.

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

1:2

Consider it great/nothing but joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials/temptations of any kind, 3 because you know that the trial/testing of your faith produces endurance/ perseverance; 4 and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature/fully developed and complete, lacking in nothing/not deficient in any way. 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works”. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 21 Was not our father Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith worked together with his works, and faith was brought to completion/became perfect/mature by the works. 23 Thus, the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”, and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see/know that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the spies and sent them out by a different road? 3:1 Not many of you, my brothers, should become teachers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 All of us make many mistakes. Anyone who

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

185

186

The Structural Commentary

makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. 4 Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 In the same way also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits/its boasts are great. A small flame sets a forest on fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire. It is a world of wickedness/evil placed among our members; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle/wheel of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell/Gehenna. 7 For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8 but no one can tame the tongue– a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, this ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers, yield olives, or a grapevine bear figs? No more can a salty spring produce fresh water. 18 And a fruit/harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for/by those who make peace. 4:17 Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, is guilty of sin. 5:7 Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. 8 You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray. 13 Is anyone cheerful? He should sing songs of praise. 14 Is there anyone who is sick? He should send for the elders of the church and have them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and if anyone has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth bore its fruit.

Wisdom, like faith, is fulfilled in action. The hagiographer continues his reflection in the context of hermeneutics of integrity, this time making use of positive examples whose aim is to illustrate good fruits brought by wisdom. The purpose of trials and difficulties (πειρασμοί and δοκίμια) described in this fragment is to verify the integrity, or complementarity (Gr. τελειός and ὁλόκληρος), which is synonymous to possessing wisdom and its fruits.178 Before, the narrator has been trying to bring home to his recipients the fact that faith without works does not exist, is dead; now, he is showing that wisdom always produces good fruits such as joy (both in happy

178 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 132–133; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 274.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

moments and at the time of trial), endurance, perfection, completeness, trust in God, the awareness of one’s own sinfulness, control over one’s own tongue (particularly in accusing and judging others), patience (in relation to others), readiness to forgive, which can all be summed up as righteousness which results in the ability to pray in all circumstances. In the composition of the whole fragment devoted to good fruits of wisdom, we can detect a certain semantic framework: 1:2 describes various trials which are usually considered negative, and in 5:13 the narrator comes back to this motif, writing about trials, problems, oppression, persecution, physical, spiritual or even material suffering, which should be borne with endurance (all these aspects are encompassed by the semantic field of the verb κακοπαθέω already used in James 5:10179 ). Thus, κακοπαθέω makes the meaning of the term πειρασμός from v. 2 more precise and it additionally refers to the adjective ποικίλοι ‘various’, ‘of any kind’.180 At first sight it might seem that both phrases should be seen as words initiating asymmetrical parallel structures that describe specific examples of problems and trials as well as the methods to overcome them. Still, when the hermeneutics of integrity is applied, the concluding character of James 5:13–18 may be revealed that sums up reflection concerning wisdom full of good fruits: in any circumstances (when facing trials and difficulties), one should address God in prayer, and prayer is only possible when a person possesses (integrally understood) wisdom and is aware of its fruits. In certain casuistic descriptions of the fruits of wisdom, the narrator in his customary manner alludes to the story of salvation, although he does it a bit less systematically than before, especially when he refers to the past. In the earlier examples, he has been focusing on one dominating aspect – e.g. on the act of creation, on the fall, on giving the law at Sinai or on the teaching of the prophets and, while illustrating the subsequent features or manifestations of wisdom, he presented the motif in a chronological manner (as in Wis 10–19). Now he harks back to ktiseology, the double story of the settlement in Canaan (Abraham and Rahab) and the activity of prophet Elijah. The choice of references is not original, on the contrary – it seems quite conventional, particularly when we take into account the example of Abraham (Sir 44:19–21, Wis 10:5, 1 Macc 2:52 cf. Rom 4:16, Heb 11:17). The figure of Rahab is used less frequently (cf. Heb 11:31 and 1 Clem. 12:1), but the figure of Elijah, regarded in the intertestamental tradition as the epitome of perseverant prayer and the harbinger of the Messiah, refers not only to history but also to eschatology.

179 See above – the context of this verb in chap. 2.4. 180 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 512.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

187

188

The Structural Commentary

The past Ktiseology – James 3:7–8; The story of Abraham – James 2:21–23; The story of Rahab – James 2:25; The story of Elijah – James 5:17–18.

The present The future The coming of the Lord is The fruits of wisdom: near – James 5:8c Joy – James 1:2; Patience and endurance – The coming of the Lord compared to rain – James James 1:3–4, 5:17–18. Maturity and integrity of 5:7; faith – James 1:4a; 2:18, Judgement – James 3:1b; Condemnation – James 5:15a; 3:6f; Trust in God – James Perfection and 2:22–23; Hospitality – James 2:25; impeccability – James 1:4; Peace – James 3:18. Modesty and meekness (without admonishing) – James 3:1; Awareness of being sinful – James 3:2, 5:16a; Control over tongue – James 3:2b–12; Righteousness and peace – James 3:18; Patience towards other people – James 5:7–8; Ability to forgive – James 5:16a–b Ability to pray – James 5:13–16.

The descriptions of wisdom refer to the present situation discussed in such general terms that it is not possible to associate them with any particular community struggling with problems and difficulties, to which the letter could be addressed. The universalism, as has been mentioned a number of times, is deliberate and results from the practical implementation of the literary convention chosen by the author – a circular letter to the diaspora; it also reflects the characteristic universal nature of sapiential texts. The narrator starts his meditation upon the fruits of wisdom in a transitive way, directly addressing the recipients with the phrase ἀδελφοί μου and inviting them to face a paradox – finding joy in difficult circumstances. He perfectly well realises the peculiarity of such an appeal and underlines it with alliteration and paronomasia (πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις), and then with anadiplosis and polyptoton (κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν. ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι) in vv. 3–4. This reflection is connected with the preceding deliberations

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

based on the hermeneutics of integrity by means of the expression πᾶσα χαρὰ ‘great’/‘complete’/‘nothing but joy’ that appears at the beginning of the first sentence

and shapes the argumentation in dialectical terms. The message communicated here is that ‘great’/‘complete joy’ or ‘nothing but joy’ comes not only from pleasures but also from trials (cf. James 5:13) which lead to fullness/completeness/wholeness expressed by means of the adjectives τέλειος and ὁλόκληρος as well as the phrase ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι (not deficient in any way) synonymous with them. The idea has been derived from sapiential literature, where trials, difficulties and temptations are the means by which faith is tested (cf. Sir 2:1–6, Wis 3:5–6). We can notice here a certain semantic framework, similar to the one that comprises the whole passage concerning the fruits of wisdom: on the one hand, integrity expressed with the pronoun πᾶσα, and on the other hand specified as ὁλόκληρος completeness (and perfection resulting form it) as well as ‘lack of any deficiency’ ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι. The wholeness is emphasised by the aorists used in v. 2: ἡγήσασθε ‘consider it’, ‘treat it’ (without hesitation, in spite of the paradoxical nature of the statement) and περιπέσητε ‘when you face’, ‘when [they] come upon you’ (in their fullness).181 Although the narrator does not make it clear what trials he means, the verb κακοπαθεῖ used in 5:13 suggests the whole spectrum, both external and internal aspects. What is noteworthy is the use in v. 2 of the polysemous noun πειρασμός, which appears also in the description of pure wisdom (James 1:12–13). There, the aspect of temptation has been stressed; here more stress is put on testing, although, since we know the narrator’s fondness of plays on words and polysemous meanings, we cannot exclude the connotations concerning temptation, either. The ambiguity of the noun πειρασμός (and the verb πειράζω) very well fits into James’ concept of integrity because it refers both to external processes and circumstances and to internal desires which, when not overcome, might lead to sin.182 (as in James 1:12–15). The appeal from James 1:2 is usually linked, particularly when the text is read in a linear manner, to James 1:1 and the remark about the diaspora which appears in the prescript. Hence the assumption that this is the diaspora which is exposed to various trials, difficulties and suffering that should be borne with joy. Among the most frequently enumerated difficulties are external persecutions from Jews and the experience of internal injustice within the community (like the relations between the rich and the poor).183 The structural approach does not exclude such 181 H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 131, who additionally in con. περιπέσητε sees all kinds of experience; differently D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 135, who sees the aorist ingressively or as referring to particular events. 182 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 135. 183 Ibid., s. 136.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

189

190

The Structural Commentary

trials and difficulties, but it accentuates the motif of joy in the midst of trials which is more universal and which frequently appears in intertestamental literature and in the New Testament (e.g. 2 Macc 6:12–17, 4 Macc 7:22, 11:12, Matt 5:10–12, 1 Pet 1:6–12, 4:12–14, 1 Thess 3:3). Moreover, it does not confine the predicted suffering only to the historical and social context; on the contrary – it helps to broaden the catalogue of trials (5:13) and to make them more universal, for instance by referring to their aim (completeness and integrity), to examples from the Scripture (2:18.21–25) or to Hellenistic culture (3:1–13), and finally to problems that occur in every community and at any time, like illnesses or sins (5:13–18). The objective of the trials is shown in James 1:3–4. The change of the grammatical tense from the aorist to the praesens in the participium form (γινώσκοντες ‘knowing’) and the use of the verbum finitum (κατεργάζεται ‘to bring’, ‘to prepare’, ‘to produce’) suggests permanence and continuity of the processes described here, what is a confirmation of the idea expressed above, concerning the universal nature of the appeal. The permanence and continuity are nicely emphasised by the anadiplosis and the polyptoton mentioned earlier: “the trial/testing […] produces endurance/ perseverance” (v. 3), “and let endurance/perseverance have its full/complete/perfect effect” (v. 4), “so that you may be mature/fully developed and complete, lacking in nothing/not deficient in any way” (v. 4). In v. 3 the narrator implies that he does not mean all possible kinds of ordeal but experience which strengthens faith and makes it perfect, complete. As the previous descriptions of wisdom have shown, real faith is integrated with deeds – now we can ask in what way such faith may be tested. The answer which comes to mind takes us back to reflection concerning wisdom obedient to the law and wisdom full of mercy: a test for faith would be separating it from works. The author of James is going to follow this path in 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12 and 5:14–16. In v. 3 attention should be paid to two crucial terms: δοκίμιον and ὑπομονή. The second noun has already appeared in the context of patience and endurance (or patient perseverance) of God who, through the prophets, proclaimed his mercy (James 5:11 – humble/compassionate wisdom). Now the message is a bit different – those are trials and difficulties that strengthen endurance and help to persevere in faith both in the internal sense (belief) and in the external aspect (works). In the Greek language there are two terms which shed light on the notion of patience and endurance from slightly different perspectives (and both are used in James): μακροθυμία and ὑπομονή. The first one indicates patience towards one’s neighbours, enduring their behaviour even when it brings internal or external suffering (compare the suffering and patience of prophets in James 5:10 or eschatological connotations of patient waiting for the coming of the Lord in James 5:7). The second one is usually used in reference to a firm, unshakeable demeanour in face of various difficulties, to underline the power, the stamina, the persistence and courage that accompany perseverance.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

The noun δοκίμιον has been used to denote not so much testing as, in general, the presence of faith in human life. The hagiographer has applied a rare Greek term that in the NT can only be found in 1 Pet 1:7, and in the LXX in Ps 12[11]:7 and Prov 27:21 (although one may also come across this word used in the form of a verb – e.g. in Sir 2:5, 31:10, Wis 3:6 or of an adjective – e.g. 1 Kings 10:18, Zech 11:13). In the first case, the results of the test are accentuated; in the second case – the process of testing itself, which alludes to testing gold in the fire (cf. the same motif in Sir 2:1–6 or in Wis 3:5–6 where “gold is tested in the fire, and those found acceptable, in the furnace of humiliation”). We need continuous trials and difficulties to make our faith pure, devoid of any contamination (doubts and the desire to impose one’s own will upon God) and thus more valuable and enabling our prayers to be heard by God (cf. “the prayer of faith” in James 5:15). It has to be stressed that the process of purification pertains to faith that is alive184 and that encompasses both the beliefs (the internal aspect) and the works (the external aspect), which is perfectly well illustrated by the examples in 2:21–25, 3:1–12 and 5:14–16. The test for Abraham was leaving his homeland, settling in Canaan, and sacrificing his son Isaac, the only guarantee of the fulfilment of God’s promise; for Rahab, the test was saving the lives of the strangers; and the test for every believer is the temptation to negatively assess and condemn other people, but also various illnesses and the awareness of being sinful. Verse 4 develops and sums up the reflection concerning trials and difficulties. As has been said, it clearly defines their goal – shaping each recipient of the Letter of James as a complete, integrated personality. This is confirmed by the use of three synonymous terms: τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι, ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι. Particularly the last term underscores all aspects of ‘completeness’, ‘wholeness’, ‘perfection’, ‘maturity’: without any deficiency either internally or externally, which suggests eschatological orientation, because such a state cannot be reached on earth. The adjective τέλειος in turn combines in it associations coming from the Hellenistic culture, where it usually denoted ‘perfection’, and associations derived from Jewish culture, where it highlighted ‘completeness’ and ‘maturity’ (cf. e.g. Noah is described with this word in Gen 6:9 and in Sir 44:17).185 Depending on the focus of emphasis, the adjective may be understood as a modifier describing the present situation in this world – ‘complete’, ‘mature’ or the eschatological situation in the world to come – ‘perfect’. The order of modifiers seems to be intentional: from earthly completeness/integrity through wholeness/perfection, which has two aspects, to lack of any deficiency in the future.

184 Ibid., p. 137. 185 Ibid., p. 141.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

191

192

The Structural Commentary

It is not a coincidence that at the beginning of v. 4 there appears a characteristic phrase ‘to have an effect’/‘complete its work’ (the verb ἐχέτω is used in the form of imp. praes.) that indicates the absurdity of separating faith and works. Together with the ending of v. 3, the phrase forms a sequence typical of James: “the trial/testing of your faith produces endurance/preseverance; and let endurance have its full effect” (cf. James 1:15). Although the noun ἔργον (‘work’, ‘effect’) is used in the singular, it can be treated as a collectivum encompassing all activities which result from faith and this, in the case of James, probably means fulfilling the ‘full’, ‘whole’ τέλειος commandment of love with reference to God and to other people. The phrase “let endurance have its full/complete/perfect effect” may thus be understood as an introduction to more detailed deliberations (examples) concerning works which accompany faith and which show the person endowed with faith as integrated, able to fulfil the commandment to love God and one’s neighbour, as opposed to a double-minded and hesitant (δίψυχος) person. The utterance draws upon the sapiential idea of perfection, completeness, and righteousness which is tested in difficult circumstances – cf. Wis 3:5–6, Sir 2:1–6, 31:10, 44:17. The last example from Ecclesiasticus introduces an Old Testament character – Noah. The narrator of James acts in a similar way when he introduces the examples of Abraham, Rahab and Elijah. By introducing positive scriptural examples,186 the narrator once again wants to strongly emphasise the fact that completeness and maturity means, among other things, the integrity of faith and works. James 2:18 starts with the introduction of an imaginary interlocutor, typical of a diatribe: Ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω· δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν. (But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works”. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.) The problem is that in a typical diatribe the interlocutor presents views different from the author of the text whereas here he seems to fully agree with the narrator of James, to be a kind of his alter ego, an anonymous character who can speak in the 1st person singular (the sender and the main narrator of James hardly ever uses this form and, when he does, he usually makes use of the plural – cf. 3:1–2) and who is trying to prove how important the external aspects of faith – works – are, since it is only on their basis that a bystander can discover the existence of internal aspects. Works are mentioned here in very general and universal terms but, when we apply the hermeneutics based on the commandment of love, we might assume they mean the fulfilment of that commandment (or commandments). This is also confirmed by the choice of examples: the behaviour of Abraham accentuates the patriarch’s trust in God so it illustrates the first commandment of love; what

186 Compare above – the absurd, negative examples of separating faith from works in the chap. 2.6.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

Rahab did for the spies is a practical implementation of the second commandment of love.187 The transition from the 2nd person plural, dominating in the preceding initial considerations, to the 2nd person singular is the consequence of the change of the generic convention and the use of this untypical diatribe. The first, exemplifying part is introduced with an opposition which evolves into a polyptotic chiasmus: you have faith σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις I have works κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω A. Show me your faith δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου B. apart from/without works χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων B’. I by my works will show you κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων A’. my faith τὴν πίστιν. The idea clearly corresponds to the previous reflection concerning the absurdity of separating faith from works: how can you prove faith without showing any good deeds? The verb δείκνυμι ‘to prove’ is crucial here – it pertains both to the sense of sight ‘to show’ and to understanding: ‘to explain’. This concerns all aspects of faith, internal (explanation) and external (demonstration). It is not possible to give evidence of the existence of any internal aspects of faith without referring to the external aspects – good deeds. By observing the deeds (a reference to showing implied by the verb δείκνυμι) – the external aspects or fruits of faith – an onlooker may draw conclusions (a reference to explaining implied by the same verb) concerning the internal aspects. To bring this fact even more palpably to the attention of those who would like to separate faith from works, some scriptural arguments are provided. Biblical examples form a structure whose framework is indicated by the rhetorical questions in 2:21 and 2:25. Then, there comes argumentation proving the perfection of faith integrated with works and two very similar sentences, one directed at a single addressee (v. 22), and the other one at a collective addressee (w. 24). The central position is given to a biblical argument: A. a rhetorical question (Abraham) – v. 21; B. integration of faith and works (an apophthegm) – v. 22; C. a scriptural argument about righteousness and friendship with God, which is the result of the testing of faith – v. 23; B’. integration of faith and works (an apophthegm) – v. 24; A’. a rhetorical question (Rahab) – v. 25.

187 See below: a detailed description of the examples, as well as J.B. Adamson, James, the Man, p. 122; P.H. Davids, James, p. 120, 127–128.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

193

194

The Structural Commentary

Elements A, B, B’ and A’ relate to the observations concerning the conduct of Abraham and Rahab, and this is additionally emphasised by the verbs βλέπεις “you see” in v. 22 and ὁρᾶτε “you see/know” in v. 24. But the observations from vv. 21 and 25 are simultaneously commented on (explained) with the use of the hermeneutics of integrity (ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ “faith was active along/working/ worked together with his works” – v. 22, ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” – v. 24), which brings to mind associations with the verb δείκνυμι, discussed earlier. Verse 23 in turn is the only one in which God, whom Abraham trusted, is mentioned; thus, it refers to the essence of faith and not to its external aspects. Location of this element in the centre of the structure suggests that the source of the righteous conduct of both Abraham and Rahab was their faith/trust in God. As has been mentioned, both examples illustrate the implementation of the integrally understood commandment of love. Abraham, by leaving his homeland, by settling in Canaan, and in particular by sacrificing his son shows his absolute trust in God and his promise; by these acts, he fulfils the first commandment of love. Rahab, by welcoming the messengers in her house in Jericho and then hiding them and letting them down from the window on a rope, fulfils the commandment to love other people but also herself – she demands that safety is guaranteed to her and her family. Her conduct stems from her belief that “the Lord your God is indeed God in heaven above and on earth below” (Josh 2:11) and the confidence that God, who accomplished great things freeing his chosen people Israel form slavery, will fulfil his promise referring to the conquest of Canaan (Josh 2:9–10). In James 2:21 Abraham is called ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν (our father), which on the one hand may be interpreted as a reference to the exclusive Jewish ethnic tradition (Isa 51:2, 4 Macc 16:20 cf. Matt 3:9, John 8:39.53, Rom 4:1, 2 Cor 11:22), and on the other hand as a remark pointing to the inclusive Christian tradition and Abraham as the father in faith (Gal 3:7–9.28–29). The author probably takes both variants into account, letting his recipients chose their favourite option depending on their situation, although it seems that, in the context of meditation upon complete, integrated faith, Abraham is here the epitome of faith, especially of faith which is tested (cf. Gen 22:1: ὁ θεὸς ἐπείραζεν τὸν Ἀβραάμ “God put Abraham to the test”). In the subsequent part of v. 21, there appears a surreptitious quotation from Gen 22:9 in a Greek version: Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπέθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον. In comparison to the LXX, there is only one change: the verb ἐπιτίθημι (in ind. aor. act. – ἐπέθηκεν) ‘to put’ has been replaced by the narrator of James with the verb ἀναφέρω (in part. aor. act. ἀνενέγκας) ‘to offer’, ‘to lead’, ‘to carry’. This change is justified by the fact that in the context of Gen 22:2.13 the verb ἀναφέρω

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

is used in reference to God’s order to sacrifice Isaak:188 ἀνένεγκον αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν “you are to offer him as a burnt offering” and in reference to a ram that was really sacrificed: ἀνήνεγκεν αὐτὸν εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν “offered it as a burnt offering”. What is noteworthy in vv. 21–23 is the use of the passive voice of verbs which create an interesting alliteration and a homoioteleutic consonance (rhyme): ἐδικαιώθη “was justified” (v. 21), ἐτελειώθη “faith was brought to completion/became perfect/mature” (v. 22), ἐπληρώθη “was fulfilled” (v. 23), ἐλογίσθη “was reckoned/ considered” (v. 23), ἐκλήθη “he was called” (v. 23). The first four verbs can be regarded as passivum theologicum. This means that this is God who justifies, God who improves the perfection of faith (by testing it – 1:3–4), God who fulfils what is written in the Scripture (the promises), and finally this is God who reckons faith and the good deeds stemming from it as righteousness. Per analogiam, we can assume that the passive form used with the last verb is passivum theologicum, too – it is God who calls a man his friend. Most controversies are aroused in this context by the verb δικαιόω ‘to be justified’. Interpretations usually make here use of Paul’s ready-made pattern of understanding justification in soteriological terms. It seems, however, that the narrator of James draws upon sapiential tradition and its understanding of justification, extensively discussed in the chapter concerning irenic wisdom (James 1:20).189 Therefore, ‘being just’ and ‘justice’ denote the ability to keep the commandments. This is not possible without possessing the gift of wisdom; hence, justice and wisdom have a lot in common. In the context of wisdom full of good fruits, justice may be considered as one of the fruits and it should be understood in the same way as wisdom – as the capability of recognising and observing God’s will190 (cf. Ps 7:9, 17[16]:21, Prov 10:2, Matt 5:20, Luke 1:75) as well as absolute trust in God (cf. v. 23). V. 22 starts with the verb βλέπεις and draws the attention of the recipients to what is to come. The form of the 2nd person singular might indicate that the diatribe is continued and that the direct addressee of the appeal is the implied imaginary partner of the dialogue. The appeal may also be treated transitively – now the narrator explains that the conduct of Abraham not only concurred with his faith but those were actually his deeds that made his faith perfect/complete. The lexeme τέλειος appears here this time as a verb ἐτελειώθη in aor. pass. which, in the context of the hermeneutics of integrity, should be translated as “has been integrated [by God]”. As has been mentioned, it is God who integrates faith and, by means of

188 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 163. 189 See above. 190 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 129, 132; P.H. Davids, James, p. 127; R.P. Martin, James, p. 93–94.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

195

196

The Structural Commentary

trials and testing, makes it complete and perfect; works may be regarded as visible elements thanks to which faith is seen on the outside as alive and integrated. The centre of the composition is verse 23, containing an alleged quotation from the Scripture: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”. However, the identification of the actual source is quite surprising as, contrary to our expectations, it does not take us back to the offering of Isaac but to an earlier act of faith of Abraham (Abram), described in Gen 15:6. It concerns the trust in God’s promise to bless the patriarch with numerous offspring. The promise is repeated in Gen 22:16–18 in the context of the offering of Isaac but the words used there are different than in the quotation in Gen 15:6 – there is no remark about righteousness. In James 2:23 we can clearly see the influence of the sapiential tradition, according to which Abraham’s faith encompassed not only the trust in the divine promise but also the sacrifice of Isaac and showing faithfulness at the time of trial (cf. 1 Macc 2:52); thus, his righteousness eventuates from the total obedience to God’s order. Those elements – trust in the words of the promise and obedience to God expressed by means of works – build faith which is perfect and complete.191 The phrase φίλος θεοῦ “the friend of God”192 derives from Jewish biblical (e.g. 2 Chron 20:7, Isa 41:8, Dan 3:35, Wis 7:27) and extrabiblical tradition (Jub 19:9, 30:19). But it must be noted that, with reference to Abraham, the LXX does not use the noun φίλος but its semantic equivalents in verb forms (e.g. Ἀβραάμ ὁ ἠγαπημένος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα “Abraham, beloved forever” or Ἀβραάμ ὃν ἠγάπησα “Abraham whom I loved”). The phrase ‘friends of God’ appears in sapiential literature and denotes those who are endowed with wisdom (Wis 7:27).193 In James 2:23 the expression “the friend of God” constitutes the summary of the reflection hitherto – it pertains both to recognising Abraham as the righteous one due to his obedience to God’s will (vv. 21 and 23) and to the perfection and integrity of his faith (vv. 22 and 23). Thus, being “the friend of God” means obeying his will and manifesting faith through works, which is possible thanks to the gift of wisdom. In the context of wisdom full of good fruits, one of the fruits will be friendship with God understood in complementary terms, as a synonym of righteousness. V 24. begins with a phrase addressed at the recipients ὁρᾶτε (you see). In contrast to v. 22, where βλέπεις refers to a diatribic interlocutor, now the narrator moves to another, higher level of narration; he comes back to the relation between the narrator and an ideal, implied addressee. The transition is marked with the change of the 2nd person singular into the 2nd person plural. Since the whole verse has a concluding character, the change may be treated as a transition introducing 191 Cf. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 254. 192 Some minuscules (1611. 1852) and Syriac translations describe Abraham as the servant of God: δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ. 193 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 136.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

a general rule: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”, and the formal indicativus may be treated as a functional imperativus: ὁρᾶτε (see). The universal character of the phrase is emphasised by the inclusive term ἄνθρωπος ‘a person’ (and not ἀνὴρ ‘a man’, ‘a male’) as well as the use of the present tense of the verb δικαιοῦται “is justified”. The present tense suggests a process which will be completed in the end times, so it seems that the imperfective aspect is more suitable here than the perfective aspect. But in the general rule we can very clearly see references to the sapiential version of the story of Abraham, employed also in the Letter of James, as well as to the intertextual strategies applied above, so it should be analysed with the findings resulting from vv. 21–23 in mind. Abraham, as has been shown, was considered righteous on the basis of his trust in God’s promises and obedience to God’s will. All this is demonstrated through his deeds, so justification comes here as the consequence of faith which is complete, integrated and brought to perfection due to numerous trials. For this reason, the quotation from Gen 15:6 has been used differently than in the original context, in reference to the whole story of Abraham, including also the offering of Isaac. In this way, the original sense of the verb πιστεύω ‘to believe’, ‘to trust’, which encompassed only the internal aspect of faith, has been complemented by the external aspect, the works. It can now be seen that faith engages the whole person, not only his intellect or emotions but also actions. The second part of the sentence – “not by faith alone” – indicates the return to understanding faith only in its internal aspect. Such faith, as has been shown mainly in the analysis of wisdom full of mercy, is dead, does not exist, so it cannot serve as the source of justification. It should also be remembered that there is nothing in the text that would indicate that justification in v. 24 (expressed here with the help of a verb) should be treated differently from justice and justification in vv. 21 and 23. In all these cases, justice and justification are understood in the sapiential, Old Testament manner. The objective of quoting the example of Rahab in v. 25, a motif which was quite popular in the first century, aims at emphasising even more powerfully the universal nature of rules mentioned in vv. 22–24 and the integrity of faith and works (cf. Heb 11:31, 1 Clem. 12).194 It is at the same time a reference to the second commandment of love and the illustration of the elements B’ and A’ of the chiasmus from v. 21: proving the existence of faith on the basis of works. On the one hand, Rahab is a figure quite opposite to Abraham: a pagan woman (who became an archetype

194 The choice of the story of Rahab as an example might have been dictated by the genealogy of Jesus, transmitted orally and well-known in Christian communities (cf. Matt 1:5). The intertestamental Jewish tradition develops the motif of Rahab who was supposed to marry Joshua and become the ancestress of eight priests and prophets. The echo of this prophetic tradition can be found in 1 Clem. 12:8 where Rahab herself is called a prophetess; see: S. Laws, Commentary, p. 137.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

197

198

The Structural Commentary

of a proselyte believing in God and living among the Israelites – Josh 2:11, 6:25b) and a prostitute.195 On the other hand – the adverb “also” suggests her equality to Abraham as far as integration of faith and works is concerned. This example is even more powerful than the example of Abraham who is unequivocally associated with faith and with the classical sequence: first faith and then works which result from it. Here, in accordance with the declaration in v. 21, the order is reversed: first come the works and then the conclusions concerning faith drawn on the basis of works. It is true that Rahab is known mainly due to her actions (hence, in James 2:25 the plural is used – ἐξ ἔργων “by works”): the hospitality shown to the Israeli spies (called in James ἄγγελοι), hiding them and then helping them to escape from Jericho. One might think that those deeds were dictated by the fear for her own life and that of her family, all the more that she demanded to be guaranteed safety when the Israelites conquered Jericho and, in accordance with God’s will, put it under the curse of destruction, both the enemy and the city itself (Josh 2:10). But the deeds of Rahab also show that she deeply believed that the God of the Israelites was stronger than the local deities and that he intended to fulfil his promise concerning the chosen people, doing great and liberating things for them. Thus, if he had promised that Israel would take possession of Canaan and settle there, this will certainly come true (Josh 2:9–11). In the story of Rahab we can also find a remark concerning justification οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ὑποδεξαμένη “was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works”. There is nothing in the text to indicate the change of the meaning of the word here: Rahab’s righteousness consists in following God’s will and this is only possible thanks to possessing the gift of wisdom. When we look at her from the perspective of the description of wisdom full of good fruits, we can say that – as in the story of Abraham – the main fruit is her righteousness but also hospitality shown to the Israeli spies and the fact of rescuing them. To conclude this part of our meditation upon wisdom full of good fruits, we can point to ‘the main fruit’ – righteousness, and to ‘individual fruits’ which make up righteousness: absolute trust in God and in his promises, obedience to his will reflected, inter alia, in the willingness to make the greatest sacrifice or in offering help and hospitality to foreigners. As can be seen, the fruits of wisdom highlight the integrity of faith and works. Moreover, the circumstances implied by the biblical examples – the demand to sacrifice Isaac or the threat to the life of Rahab and her kin – should be seen as examples of tests and trials that improve the perfection of integrally understood faith. Another type of trial which might improve the quality of faith or even prove its existence (cf. James 2:18) is described in 3:1–12. This time it is not a problematic

195 Josephus in Ant. V 1:7 describes her as an innkeeper, and not a prostitute.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

external situation or any life-threatening danger, as it was in the case of Abraham or Rahab, but it is a threat that comes from within. In this way the other meaning of the noun πειρασμός is illustrated – temptation. This concerns the ability to control one’s predilection to instruct and assess other people and, consequently, to judge and to condemn them. The previous examples were derived mainly from the Jewish tradition; now the narrator draws upon the Hellenistic tradition, although some elements known from sapiential literature may also be detected in the background. The transition to the description of this trial is marked in James 3:1 with the apostrophe ἀδελφοί μου (my brothers). Already at the beginning, we come across an eschatologically justified warning Μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί μου, εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα (Not many of you […] should become teachers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness). It is sometimes assumed that the whole fragment concerns the teachers working in the community to which James addressed his letter196 or to those teaching heresies in the community.197 There is also a possibility that διδάσκαλος denotes here an honourable title appropriated by people who do not deserve it but only desire the esteem and privileges ascribed to teachers (cf. Matt 23:7–8).198 The last suggestion best suits the general and universal convention of the letter to the diaspora and the structural approach – it helps to broaden the circle of the recipients of the warning to all those wishing to instruct or to judge other people and thus to usurp God’s authority and gain profit from it (for example, expecting admiration and esteem for their, usually illusive, righteousness). Already in 1:20, where irenic wisdom has been described, the narrator of James has expressed his critical evaluation of such behaviour and, while discussing wisdom full of mercy, he has warned his addressees against acting without mercy and judging others, because it might lead to an eschatological judgement without mercy (James 2:13). A similar reflection can also be found in The Shepherd of Hermas – in parable nine there appear accusations: […] they are faithful, but slow to learn and stubborn and self-pleasers, desiring to know all things, and yet they know nothing at all. By reason of this their stubbornness, understanding stood aloof from them, and a foolish senselessness entered into them; and they praise themselves as having understanding, and they desire to be self-appointed teachers, senseless though they are. Owing then to this pride of heart many, while they exalted themselves, have been made empty (99:1–3).199

196 197 198 199

See e.g. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 268. See e.g. J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 180. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 141; T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 143. The Shepherd of Hermas, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ shepherd-lightfoot.html [accessed: 23.08.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

199

200

The Structural Commentary

Moreover, in Matt 5:22, there appears the same idea concerning the relation between accusing and judging others and the future eschatological judgement and eternal punishment. This shows the popularity of this motif in the first century. Attention should be paid to the form of the verb λαμβάνω – here in the first person plural ind. fut. pass. (λημψόμεθα), which puts the author in the same position as those who “will be judged with greater strictness”. This stands in contrast to the form of the verb γίνομαι used here in imp. praes. act. of the 2nd person plural (γίνεσθε). It might be a remnant of another diatribe (cf. the 1st person singular in 2:18) and an example of a direct form of communication;200 it might also be an attempt at giving the message a more universal character by underlining the fact that everyone succumbs to similar temptation and everyone stumbles and thus everyone deserves to be judged (cf. Job 4:17, Ps 19[18]:13, Prov 20:9). This is confirmed by the repetition in the following line of the 1st person plural of a verb rarely used in the NT – πταίω ‘to stumble’/‘to sin’. In the LXX πταίω is applied when errors of moral nature (Deut 7:25) or military defeats (1 Sam 4:2–3.10, 7:10, 2 Sam 10:19, 1 Kings 8:33) are described. What might be surprising in the context of James is the text from Sir 37:12, which expresses the idea of compassion rather than that of judgement or instruction for the one who stumbles. Showing empathy towards other people is here one of the touchstones of godliness.201 Seemingly discordant with James 3:2, Sir 37:12 is close to James’ idea of resisting the temptation to assess and to judge and choosing the path of empathy and turning people back from wandering (cf. James 5:19–20). The second half of James 3:2 is made up of a hyperbole which has a character of a gnome and which is rhetorically linked to the first part with a polyptoton πταίομεν – πταίει: εἴ τις ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνήρ, δυνατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα (anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle). Thus, the form of the sentence confirms the intention to make the message as universal as it is possible. Moreover, in terms of content, it reveals affinity with Old Testament apophthegms (e.g. Prov 10:19, 12:18, 13:3, 18:21, Sir 19:16, 25:8, Ps 39[38]:2, 141[140]:3) and with Qumran texts (4Q525). It is also well embedded in the context of tests and trials, crucial for the reflection on wisdom full of good fruits. What links the apophthegm to the tests and trials depicted earlier, and particularly to the general introduction to them, is the goal, expressed with the same adjective – τελειός ‘perfect’/‘complete’/ ‘mature’. In grammatical terms, the maxim is a conditional sentence with the protasis (the antecedent) containing a predicate expressed in ind. praes. act. and with the apodosis (the consequent) in which the predicate is expressed with the help

200 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 267. 201 Ibid., p. 274.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

of an elliptical structure, characteristic of the Semitic style, where the formal verbum finitum in the indicative form is missing. Hence, the whole expression may be treated as modus realis. This means the narrator claims that controlling one’s tongue and the whole body is attainable in the same way as it is possible to attain completeness/perfection/maturity. Successful resistance to tests and trials as well as perfecting one’s faith through patient perseverance is thus available to everyone (cf. James 1:3–4). Describing control over tongue, the narrator makes use of unusual vocabulary – this refers first of all to the verb χαλιναγωγέω in 3:2. It has already been used in 1:26 in a similar context202 and pertained to controlling a horse with the help of tight reins, and the same imagery is used in v. 3. James is the only hagiographer who applies the image of keeping tight rein in order to illustrate control over tongue. The metaphor in v. 3 seems to be clear at first sight: reins are the means by which a rider has control over the horse but also brings it back to the right road (cf. 2 Kings 19:28, Isa 30:28, 37:29);203 nevertheless, in the light of the next example – a ship directed with a rudder (v. 4) – it does not seem to be so accurate: it is not very clear what or whom the reins and the horse actually represent. Do the reins represent human will? Does the horse stand for the tongue or maybe for the whole body? Still, the image may be viewed as an optimistic vision of control over tongue. As Matt 12:34 suggests, the ability to restrain one’s tongue, the attempts to speak only well (an external act) come from within, are the result of thoughts, beliefs, emotions and will which all make up faith. It is even more manifestly expressed in TBenj. 6:5: The good mind hath not two tongues, of blessing and of cursing, of contumely and of honor, of sorrow and of joy, of quietness and of confusion, of hypocrisy and of truth, [of poverty and of wealth]; but it hath one disposition, uncorrupt and pure, concerning all men.204

This idea is transposed to other external acts – control over one’s body would refer to all actions which have their source inside man. The integrity is highlighted by the use of the noun σῶμα ‘body’, which depicts man in a holistic manner – all of the internal and external aspects.205

202 See below – chap. 2.9. 203 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 224. 204 The Testament of Benjamin, transl. R.H. Charles, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ patriarchs-charles.html [accessed: 24.08.2019]. 205 Differently e.g. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 278, who understands “the body” metaphorically as a community (cf. 1 Cor 12:27 and Church as the body of Christ) led by teachers and their instruction (a bridle, reins).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

201

202

The Structural Commentary

Metaphors in vv. 3–5 are usually read together, as illustrations of the control over tongue, which results in the control over the whole body and over deeds. It seems, however, that v. 3 is not a separate example but an explanation why the author uses such unusual vocabulary. This is evidenced by the polyptoton χαλιναγωγῆσαι (the verb) and χαλινοὺς (the noun) as well as by the imperfection of the metaphor mentioned before. Undoubtedly both the image of a horse led by the bridle and a ship directed by means of a rudder used in reference to restraining one’s tongue and control over the whole body derive from the Hellenistic tradition; they can be found, inter alia, in Plutarch (Moralia) and in Philo of Alexandria (De Agricultura; De Opificio Mundi).206 The metaphor of a ship directed with a rudder (v. 4) is more refined and accurate, particularly from the point of view of the hermeneutics of integrity, to show the relationship between internal elements (human will) and external elements (a rudder and a ship). It is separated from the preceding image with the particle ἰδοὺ which usually introduces a new idea. What is meant here is not a new concept but a new, better illustration. The writer uses a wider range of means to suggestively present the image. He contrasts “large” τηλικαῦτα ships with a “very small rudder” and does not use the adjective in its basic form – μικρός ‘small’ but in the superlative form – ἐλάχιστος. What is supposed to impress the audience is also the description of “strong winds” ἀνέμων σκληρῶν which drive the ship. Apart from the dynamic elements, in 4b there also appears a static element: “the will/the whim of the pilot”. The interpretation of the whole fragment seems obvious, especially in reference to James 1:3–4 and the prediction of trials: the test, the difficult circumstances are here depicted as the winds, the ship symbolises actions and the rudder – the tongue; both elements represent the external aspect of faith, the works, whereas “the will” symbolises the inner aspect of faith. It is the will which makes the ship leave the port so it works and it directs the works. Without the pilot’s will and without his abilities the ship would remain in the port and nobody would be aware of its existence (or, using James’ terminology – it would be dead). The fact of moving across the rough sea in spite of the gales is a confirmation of the pilot’s abilities. What can be clearly seen here is the dependence and the inseparability of the works (the ship) and faith (the will of the pilot). A certain gradation in the proclamation of faith is also visible (cf. James 2:18): first comes a verbal declaration (speech/the tongue), and then works, which brings to mind the testimony in James 2:12. Integrated faith matures and becomes complete at the time of a trial (winds). This illustration is summed up in v. 5 in an unexpected manner: the narrator focuses most of his attention on one little item – the tongue (the rudder) and warns the recipients against its negative (disintegrating) role in the relation between faith,

206 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 146; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 278; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 345–346.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

declarations and works. Firstly, he refers to the illustration provided in the text: οὕτως καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστὶν (also the tongue is a small member), and then he moves on to the function of the tongue which has not been described in the example, namely, boasting and making demands: μεγάλα αὐχεῖ (it boasts of great exploits/its boasts are great), using alliteration: μικρὸν μέλος μεγάλα. In this way, he also refers to 3:1 and the warning not to become teachers – they have already been interpreted as a paradigm of those who boast and expect privileges. Since teachers operate mainly with words, what immediately comes to mind is the synecdoche pars pro toto (a tongue representing the teachers), all the more that the fragment contains a multitude of rhetorical figures. There is a play on words also in the latter part of v. 5 – a paronomasia (a pun) created by homonymous adjectives ἡλίκον and ἡλίκη used here to denote opposite meanings: in the first case ἡλίκον means “how small” (a flame), in the second case ἡλίκη “how great” (a forest). The illustration is introduced with the particle ἰδοὺ, which, in the same way as in v. 4, separates this example from the previous one. This is accompanied by a change of the character of the argumentation. The previous example (or examples, if we also count 3:3 among them) has demonstrated an optimistic belief in the possibility to control one’s tongue and to integrate faith with verbal declarations and works; now, the example shows damage inflicted by boasting or/and demands207 which are similar to a small flame that has the power to set a great forest ablaze. The noun ὕλη may mean both a forest and a great amount of wood but, regardless of the choice of the meaning, the image of fire wreaking havoc is very expressive. Moreover, in contrast to the previous images, it is also universal, since it appears both in Hellenistic literature (in Philo of Alexandria, in the Iliad, in Seneca) and in biblical literature (Isa 9:18, Ps 83[82]:15, 120[119]:3–4), including sapiential texts, where it often refers to the tongue (Prov 16:27, 26:21, Sir 28:22–23). It also opens up a catalogue of subsequent, equally universal examples derived from the world of nature. What is worth emphasising is the disintegrating function of the tongue. In the triad faith – verbal declaration (speech) – works, boasting may refer both to faith and to works. Boasting of faith which is not followed by deeds or of deeds which do not stem from faith but from the wish to be admired by others are equally harmful.208 Thus, in v. 6 the hagiographer’s assessment of the tongue is very harsh. Due to the lexis, v. 6. is closely linked to v. 5. First the narrator explicitly points out that “the tongue is a fire” described in v. 5, and then he repeats that it is also one of our members/organs – μέλος, without specifying how big it is but describing the negative role it plays. Most problems and controversies are aroused by the interjection κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας (a world of wickedness/evil). Some commentators

207 P.H. Davids, James, p. 140; R.P. Martin, James, p. 112; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 279. 208 This motif will be developed in the description of unhypocritical wisdom – see below.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

203

204

The Structural Commentary

(F. Spitta, Martin Dibelius) even claim that this is a later gloss or part of a longer gloss which did not belong to the original text.209 Moreover, it is difficult to unequivocally state whether “a world of wickedness/evil” should be treated as the continuation of the metaphor “the tongue is a fire”, or if it belongs to the subsequent part about the tongue that stains the whole body. The expression itself may be an oxymoron or at least a bold metaphor, because the noun κόσμος indicates the world, the order or an ornament, which means it is either neutral or positive,210 while the noun ἀδικία – ‘wickedness’/‘evil’/‘a lie’ – is perceived in a decidedly negative way. If we assume that the metaphor κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας belongs to the first part of v. 6, then the whole phrase may be explained additively: “the tongue is a fire, it is a world of wickedness/evil” or attributively “the tongue is a fire that belongs to the world of wickedness”, or, alternatively, “the tongue is a fire that creates a world of wickedness”. An interesting proposal has been formulated by Józef Kozyra who accentuates the internal incongruity of the metaphor and also treats κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας additively but points out its explanatory nature: the damaging function of the tongue compared to fire would consist in the presentation of the world of wickedness in beautiful terms, as the truth, it would entail the embellishment of falsehood, a lie.211 Sometimes κόσμος is understood as ‘the whole sum’ so κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας may be a hyperbolic ‘whole sum of wickedness’.212 Taking into account James 1:27 and 4:4, where the world is seen in opposition to God, it is claimed that the tongue with its separating and destructive power is in a man the microcosm of a hostile macrocosm, it introduces the world, hostile to God, into a man.213 If we follow the last suggestion, we should combine κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας with the subsequent sentence and literally translate this part of v. 6 in the following way: “and the tongue is a fire; a world of wickedness – the tongue is placed among our members/organs”. What follows is the description of the tongue on the basis of effects which are brought about by its activities: “[the tongue] stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle/wheel of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell/Gehenna”. The narrator does not specify ‘the sins of the tongue’; still, keeping in mind the dependence of James on sapiential literature, it might be assumed that this concerns sins enumerated in Prov, which characterise the conduct of a fool, a person devoid of the gift of wisdom: hate speech and spreading slander (10:18), thoughtless words which can “wound like a sword” (12:18), lies (12:19) or jumping to hasty conclusions (18:13).

209 See S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 281. 210 There are some examples of the use of the term κόσμος in the New Testament in a negative sense (e.g. John 17:18 or even in James – 1:27 and 4:4) but then it is not additionally modified. 211 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 183. 212 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 150. 213 Ibid.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

As has been mentioned, “the body” σῶμα in 3:1–12 denotes the whole man.214 Here, it has been additionally underlined by the adjective ὅλον. Thus, defilement through the tongue encompasses both the interior sphere of man and his actions, which very well reflects the disintegrating function of the tongue in relation to faith (the internal aspect) and to works (the external aspect). This in turn prevents a person who is totally defiled/stained from coming close to God. In this way, the metaphor “the tongue is a fire” is explained, because the tongue “sets on fire the cycle/ wheel of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell/Gehenna”. The extrabiblical expression τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως alludes to Orphic and Pythagorean tradition concerning metempsychosis,215 reincarnation of the souls up to the moment when they reach perfection, but the condition is that the noun γένεσις is translated here as “nature/ birth”. As the analysis of the verse 1:23 shows, it may also mean “nature” – then “the cycle of nature” loses its direct connotation with the Hellenistic culture and might bring to mind the sinful nature of man after the fall or simply the natural cycle of life starting with birth and ending with death. Typically, the narrator does not suggest which semantic variant is more appropriate. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Hellenistic and Jewish traditions overlap here, which is even more strongly underlined by the use of paronomasia combined with alliteration γένεσις γέεννα along with the verb φλογίζω, used in a polyptoton in the active voice – φλογίζουσα and in the passive voice – φλογιζομένη. The verb φλογίζω may mean ‘to set on fire’, ‘burn up’ or ‘illuminate’.216 It seems to be obvious that when the verb is used in the active voice and is accompanied by “the cycle/wheel of nature/birth” understood in the Hellenistic way, the image reflects the destruction of the possibility of reaching perfection. When the phrase τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως is understood in a more neutral sense, as the natural cycle of life, burning the cycle/the wheel might simply denote bringing someone to death with a false word (e.g. slander or accusation). Then, if the phrase τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως is understood in the Jewish way, with reference to the story of the fall and human sinful nature, the verb φλογίζω should be translated not as burning/setting on fire, but as illuminating. This would mean that the tongue, which operates in the same way as fire does, illuminates the fallen nature of man and contributes to the continuation of the cycle described in James 1:15: desire → sin → death. In the third part of the description of the destructive activities of the tongue γέεννα is mentioned. A certain interpretative clue for τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως might be hidden at this point: if the preceding words related to the realms of Hellenism, now they are balanced with a reference to the Jewish vision of the world. Γέεννα

214 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 356. 215 See above – chap. 1. 216 G.H. Rendal, The Epistle, p. 60.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

205

206

The Structural Commentary

is of course the Hellenised name of the Valley of Hinnom, a gorge located south of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:10, Jer 7:31), described by Jeremiah as a place where incense was offered to foreign deities and where innocent victims were killed (Jer 19:4). The image of a gorge where fire constantly burns became an element of the figurative apocalyptic and then rabbinic language and the synonym for the place of punishment following the eschatological judgement (cf. Matt 5:22, 18:9). Therefore, succumbing to the temptations of one’s tongue leads to inevitable eternal punishment. In v. 7, the hagiographer comes back to the positive examples of controlling one’s tongue, abandoned in vv. 5 and 6. He now resorts to universal images derived from nature although some of them might evoke associations with the story of salvation. The remark concerning the rule of man over animals harks back to Gen 1:26.28–30, 2:19–20, although it might also be associated with Hellenistic, in particular Stoic, literature (Cicero, Seneca and Philo of Alexandria).217 The element that integrates the Hellenistic and Jewish realms is the use of the adjective ἐναλίον to describe sea creatures. The term is never used either in the NT or in the LXX, but it can be found in Hellenistic texts.218 Apart from that, the vocabulary employed to depict animals is quite traditional and it takes us back to biblical descriptions. However, the sequence in which the animals tamed by the human species are mentioned is slightly different than in the story of creation. James starts with land animals, then he enumerates birds, reptiles and sea creatures. Genesis begins the description of the creation of animals with sea creatures and birds (the fifth day of creation – Gen 1:20–21), and then it enumerates land animals and reptiles (the sixth day of creation – Gen 1:24–25). When God’s order to man to be the master of animals is quoted, the LXX uses the verb ἄρχω, but the narrator of James chooses to make use of the verb δαμάζω which, rather than to ruling, refers to taming, restraining or controlling. What is noteworthy is the double use (polyptoton) of the verb, first in ind. praes. med. et pass. (δαμάζεται), and right afterwards in ind. perf. med. et pass. (δεδάμασται). In this manner, the narrator strongly underscores that the existing order (the primacy of the verb in praesentis) was established at the moment of creation, which means it is unchangeable and always valid. The structure of the verse is characteristic, too; it is framed on one side with the phrase φύσις θηρίων – “species/nature of wild animals/beast”, and on the other side with – φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη “human species/nature” which employs a rarely used adjective. The term φύσις itself, even though it is understood differently in both contexts, suggests a connection between man and animals – both man and animals are the elements of

217 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 153; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 287. 218 See above – chap. 1.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

God’s creation and they act in accordance with their nature. By contrast, additions modifying the lexeme φύσις serve as differentiating elements. The optimistic narrative and positive diagnosis in v. 7 is contrasted with verse 8 which, in the context of tests and trials and in the light of what has been said in 3:2–4, seems to be bitterly ironic and the irony is expressed in a hyperbolic manner (cf. ἅπαντες “all of us” make mistakes in 3:2, now οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων “no one” can tame the tongue). Such generalisation may be the result of the continuation of the thought about φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη ‘human nature’, all the more that the lexis from v. 7 that indicates taming (δαμάζω) is repeated here. It can be clearly seen that the vocabulary in the whole fragment has been very carefully chosen – it is precise and accurately reflects the ideas expressed by means of the images. In James 3:2–3 the image of a domestic animal is summoned up – a horse which is already tame but needs to be directed and controlled; the idea is expressed with the verb χαλιναγωγέω. In James 3:7–8 we come across the image of wild, undomesticated animals whose taming requires work from scratch, breaking in. This is expressed with the verb δαμάζω which matches the tongue shown as ἀκατάστατον κακόν, μεστὴ ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου (a restless evil, full of deadly poison).219 The whole phrase brings to mind associations with a slithering viper or a poisonous snake, animals dangerous for men, difficult to tame, whose movements and behaviour can be controlled only with great difficulty. The juxtaposition of two separate expressions: “a restless evil” and “full of deadly poison” resembles the situation in v. 6: “the tongue is a fire […] a world of wickedness”. It is also not clear how they should be connected with the previous part of the utterance, where the word γλῶσσα (the tongue) is not used in nom. but in acc. For this reason, “a restless evil” as well as “[the tongue] full of deadly poison” may be treated as a causative elliptical expression: cno one can tame the tongue [because it is] a restless evil [and is] full of deadly poison”.220 The expressions in the nominative form may also be regarded as equivalents of the vocative form and translated emphatically: “Oh, restless evil! Oh [the tongue], full of deadly poison!” The adjective ἀκατάστατος has already appeared in James 1:8 to describe an unstable, double-minded, doubtful person (cf. Prov 26:28 where the noun ἀκαταστασία is used). Here, contextually, in reference to the image of a wild, untamed and poisonous animals, it has been translated as “restless”. However, we have to be aware of the connection between the two cases – in both, ἀκατάστατος is perceived negatively. Changeability and instability (and, consequently, uncontrollable mobility) stand in contrast to integrity and are characteristic of a person who in James is called δίψυχος, torn, double-minded. Thus, in the case of the tongue, the

219 In reality the term μεστή, refers to the tongue and not to evil – see below. 220 See. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 289, fn. 107.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

207

208

The Structural Commentary

underlying reason for evil lies in lack of integrity between speech and beliefs as well as between speech and actions, as it has been suggested in v. 5. Evil itself has not been defined here – we do not know if what is meant is evil in an abstract sense, or maybe evil personified by demons like in The Shepherd of Hermas where in the second commandment (27:3) the nature of slander is described and the adjective ἀκατάστατος is also used:221 “Slander is evil; it is a restless demon, never at peace, but always having its home among factions”.222 The noun ἰὸς has a contextual meaning as well – it may be translated as ‘poison’/ ‘spearhead’/‘venom’ as well as ‘rust’/‘tarnish’ – as in James 5:3. ‘Poison’ and ‘venom’ in reference to the tongue and the image of a poisonous snake or a poisoned arrow frequently appear in Old Testament literature (e.g. Ps 58[57]:5, 64[63]:4, 140[139]:4) or in Qumran texts (1QHa 13:27). In the subsequent verses, the narrator develops the motif of mobility/restlessness, that denotes inner conflict, hesitation, lack of peace and lack of integration, which in other passages in James is explicitly presented as absence of wisdom with all its negative consequences. Double-mindedness may also be revealed in speech, in what is being said (and sometimes also in how it is being said). In v. 9 the narrator comes back to the 1st person plural (what is seen by some commentators as the influence of liturgical formulas223 ), identifying himself again with those who cannot fully control their tongue – hence, in James’ characteristic opposition typical of sapiential literature there appears a laudable element (adoration of God) and a reprehensible element (cursing people who are made in the likeness of God). The opposition reveals lack of integrity between faith and its external manifestation as well as a selective approach to the commandment of love. Faith should entail worshipping God (the first commandment of love) and loving one’s neighbours (the second commandment of love) whereas sometimes only the first commandment of love is fulfilled, and the conduct towards other people (cursing) contradicts the second commandment. In James’ hermeneutics of integrity, the violation of one commandment is equal to the violation of the whole Torah (James 2:10–12). The opposition itself adoration – curse resembles the alternative blessing – cursing, so characteristic of the Torah,224 with all its consequences (e.g. Deut 30:19). In both texts the same lexeme indicating good speaking is used (in James 3:9 εὐλογοῦμεν in the form of a verb, in Deut 30:19 εὐλογία in the form of a noun), which in the context of ‘speech’/‘the tongue’ γλῶσσα is the evidence of linguistic refinement 221 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 362. 222 The Shepherd of Hermas, transl. J.B. Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ shepherd-lightfoot.html [accessed: 26.08.2019]. 223 D.C. Allison, Blessing God and Cursing People. James 3,9–10, JBL 130 (2011), no. 2, p. 403. 224 Ibid., p. 404, sees here a reference to the ‘Eighteen Blessings’.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

of the author of James (cf. the element λογ- referring to the word). The choice of the blessing leads to life, the choice of the curse entails death. This implicit allusion to the Torah may be a warning to those recipients who are able to read it – cursing other people means death, and that, in turn, matches the earlier image of Gehenna (v. 6). In the blessing, our attention is drawn to the unusual phrase κύριος καὶ πατέρ (the Lord and Father). In biblical texts we can come across expressions which are similar to but not the same as this phrase (1 Chron 29:10, Isa 63:16, and particularly Sir 23:1.4, Matt 11:25). Maybe the separation of the title “Lord” used in relation to God and the “Father” – also used in reference to God – introduces the recipient to the second part of the utterance where the fatherhood of God is understood as the act of creation of people in God’s image (Gen 1:26). The similarity is expressed with the noun ὁμοίωσις, rare in biblical literature, which appears in the LXX as the translation of the Hebrew ‫ ְדּמוּת‬. The remark concerning the creation of men in God’s image contrasts with the fact of cursing them (καταράομαι). By means of a syllogism: God created people in his image → people have God’s image implanted in themselves → cursing those who bear God’s image in themselves means cursing the One they resemble – we might try to explain why violating the second commandment of love is equal to the violation of the first commandment and has nothing in common with the declared faith or even with its partial manifestation in the form of adoration of God. A clear statement that acting against man created by God means acting against God himself can be found, inter alia, in 2 En 44:1–2: The Lord with his hands having created man, in the likeness of his own face, the Lord made him small and great. Whoever reviles the ruler’s face, and abhors the Lord’s face, has despised the Lord’s face, and he who vents anger on any man without injury, the Lord’s great anger will cut him down.225

The accusation formulated by the narrator is thus very serious. Putting a curse on somebody in the ancient world was not just a wish of bad luck that did not have any reflection in reality but it had a character of a perlocutionary act,226 where the uttered content was believed to become reality, including the separation of the cursed person from the divine blessing and from God (cf. Lev 26:14–39, Deut 28:15–68). This might mean death both in the literal and in the metaphorical sense. For this reason, Prov 18:21 says that “death and life are in the gift of the tongue”,

225 The Apocalypse of 2 Enoch, transl. R.H. Charles, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/2enoch.html [accessed: 26.08.2019]. 226 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 293.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

209

210

The Structural Commentary

and in intertestamental literature we can find a straightforward order not to curse others e.g. in the extract from 2 En 44:2, quoted above, where there appears the declaration of punishment: “he who spits on the face of man reproachfully, will be cut down at the Lord’s great judgment”. Earlier, the narrator of James has uttered a threat – in 3:1 (a strict judgement) and in 3:6 (“Gehenna”); now in v. 10, which has a character of a transition summing up practices described in v. 9, he calls with emphasis: οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί μου, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι (My brothers, this ought not to be so!). Examples provided in vv. 11–12 are supposed to convince the recipients why “this ought not to be so”. The principal answer is the suggestion that such conduct is against the laws of nature, the order of creation. Thus, the earlier ktiseological references find their explanation here. All the examples provided – the one concerning fresh and brackish water (v. 11) and those about trees and fruit (v. 12) – have the form of rhetorical questions, and that means the narrator is coming back here to the convention of a diatribe. As in James 2:15–16, they depict absurd concepts and therefore express a similar idea, although it is shown from a different perspective – that of wisdom full of good fruit. Inner conflict, double-mindedness cannot be the fruit of wisdom; on the contrary – its fruit is integrity revealed, among other things, in control over the tongue and consistency of thoughts, speech and action. V. 11 starts with an emphatic particle μήτι, which immediately suggests a negative answer (given in v. 12). The image drawn here is unreal, absurd although it draws upon Palestinian natural conditions.227 The adjective πικρόν ‘brackish’ is used here purposefully; in biblical sapiential texts it appears in the context of unpleasant, ‘bitter’ words (Prov 5:4, Sir 29:25). When it describes ‘a spring’/‘water’, it is frequently used interchangeably with the adjective ἁλυκὸν ‘salty’ (cf. Num 34:3.12, Deut 3:17 – ‘the salty sea’/‘the Salt Sea’). The description of the springs as salty helps to specify the area to which the narrator most probably refers – the valley of the river Jordan, not far from the Dead Sea, where there are springs of salt/bitter water. However, the aim of the narrator is not depicting the natural world but showing analogies between ‘double speak’ and ‘double water’. This is why in v. 10 the term στόμα ‘mouth’ is used to denote a person and now the term ὀπη, is applied to indicate a spring/water – it is usually translated as ‘a crack’/‘a rock’ but it actually means ‘an opening’ which can be associated with the mouth. The association of the noun πηγὴ ‘a spring’, with the mouth is less obvious, but the couple στόμα and πηγὴ appears for example in Prov 10:11. The analogies between a blessing and the spring of fresh water as well as between the curse and salt water are clear: a blessing and fresh

227 See above – chap. 1; P.H. Davids, James, p. 147–148.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

water bring life; a curse and bitter/brackish water bring death.228 The message of the whole fragment is easily intelligible: the order of creation – nature – negates the possibility of two types of water, fresh and brackish, to come from the same spring or the same opening. The examples in v. 12 are less obvious (and less accurate) when it comes to depicting the idea of a blessing and a curse springing from the same lips, but they can be justified by a logical transition from geological to botanical observations.229 The rhetorical question starts with a typical particle μή, which also suggests a negative answer but is not as emphatic as μήτι. The question is equipped with the apostrophe ἀδελφοί μου (my brothers), which, since it appears in the last sentence of this verse, may be treated as an element of a concluding transition. The narrator evokes an image of a fig tree and a grapevine bearing fruit, popular in both Jewish and Hellenistic world.230 It might seem that all elements of the natural world enumerated here are good, positively evaluated – a fig tree, olives, a grapevine and figs. Therefore, there is no straightforward reference to a blessing and a curse, to sweetness and bitterness. But there is a reference to nature: a fig tree bears figs and it cannot bear two types of fruit – figs and olives; a grapevine bears grapes and cannot bear two types of fruit – grapes and figs.231 The image and the meditation upon the activities of the tongue is summed up by a slightly elliptical statement which, at the same time, serves as an answer to the first rhetorical question: “No more can a salty spring produce fresh water” that should be understood: fresh water cannot gush from a salty spring, [and neither can salt water come from the source of fresh water]. The narrator, by a slight shift of associations, refers here not only to external but also to internal elements; he declares that evil thoughts (“salty spring” that does not bring life) cannot be the source of good words (“fresh water”) and, per analogiam – good thoughts, good will (“fresh water”) cannot produce evil words (“salty spring”). What is again illustrated here is the integrity of internal and external elements indicated in an almost technical manner as faith and works. The conclusion of the whole passage 3:1–12 is positive: control over the tongue builds integrity/perfection and, although it is difficult, yet it is attainable (in a definitive and certain way only in the end times), because man has been created as capable of it. Separation, disintegration of faith, thoughts, beliefs on the one hand and words and then actions contrary to beliefs on the other hand is unnatural. No one can consider himself a believer and worshipper of God, if this

228 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 369 informs that it is possible for fresh and salt/brackish water to mix, particularly in streams, but the waters never come from the same spring and cannot be used to sustain life. 229 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 295. 230 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 157; J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 188. 231 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 296.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

211

212

The Structural Commentary

does not go hand in hand with the respect for people created in God’s likeness. In the context of wisdom full of good fruits – control over the tongue may be considered as one of the fruits. The description of the next fruit of wisdom differs from the previous ones first of all because it is not depicted in the context of trial or temptation but is shown as a gift. Since the author of James likes contrasts and frequently uses them, the dynamic section devoted to the presentation of negative effects of the lack of control over the tongue is followed by a short, relatively static remark concerning “a fruit/ harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for/by those who make peace” in James 3:18. When the text is read in a linear manner, this verse is treated as the final sentence of the paraenesis about wisdom that comes from above, although in stylistic terms it differs from the previous deliberations and looks more like an aphorism than the summary of the description of the attributes of wisdom.232 This provides an opportunity to analyse the passage in a structural manner and to link this verse to the description of one of the good fruits of wisdom. Such a solution is implied by lexical and semantic aspects. In 3:17 which provides an index of the features of wisdom and organises the structure of the letter, wisdom is identified as σοφία μεστὴ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν “full of good fruits”. 3:18 starts with the noun καρπὸς accompanied by the noun δικαιοσύνης233 applied in the genitive form. There are three main ways in which the genitive and, consequently, the whole phrase can be interpreted. This may be a genetivus possesivus and then the whole phrase might be understood as “a fruit belonging to righteousness”, ascribed to it; it can be a genetivus originis and then the fruit of righteousness should be understood as “a fruit coming from righteousness”; and finally, it can be a genetivus epexegeticus – “a fruit which is based on/consists in righteousness”.234 In the context of wisdom full of good fruits, the last interpretation seems to be the most appropriate – righteousness is the fruit of wisdom. It is thus a repetition and a confirmation of the fruit described in 2:21–25 and illustrated with the story of Abraham and Rahab who were regarded as righteous because they obeyed God’s will. The phrase καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης itself refers to the LXX where it appears i.a. in Prov 3:9 and 11:30. What is particularly interesting is its affinity with the latter: ἐκ καρποῦ δικαιοσύνης φύεται δένδρον ζωῆς ἀφαιροῦνται δὲ ἄωροι ψυχαὶ παρανόμων (the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but violence takes lives away). This means that the fruit of wisdom – righteousness/justice, consisting in the ability to obey God’s will, brings life.

232 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 165 quotes Dibelius here; similarly D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 395. 233 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 165. 234 Ibid.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

The predicate in 3:18 is expressed in the form of ind. praes. med. et pass. σπείρεται “is sown”, which means this is a continuous activity. Passivum can be interpreted as passivum theologicum, so the sower is God and the beneficiaries are “those who make peace”. Dativus τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην would then be a dativus commodi (indicating action for or against somebody) and such a structure would semantically match the blessing from Matt 5:9, where ‘peacemakers’ also are beneficiaries of the blessing and the recipients of the promise expressed in it.235 The whole verse should then be translated and understood as follows: “The fruit of [wisdom which consists in] being righteous is sown [by God] in peace for those who make peace”. Sowing by God in peace takes us back to James 1:20, where human anger is described as contradictory to doing or delivering justice (in the name of God), whereas – as 3:18 shows it – God operates in peace and in peace he offers his wisdom (James 1:5) whose fruit is righteousness. Peace can also have eschatological connotations here and mean sowing in this life while the fruit of wisdom, full righteousness, will only be harvested or achieved in eternity. There are no clear clues about how the phrase “those who make peace” should be understood. It can be approached contextually, using James’ hermeneutics of integrity. As has been said, 3:18 contrasts with 3:1–12, and in particular with vv. 5–6 and 8–10, where lack of integrity between thoughts, beliefs and speech (as well as deeds) is described. Absence of integrity entails a conflict – lack of peace and double-mindedness. Accordingly, peacemakers would be the opposite of δίψυχοι who cannot control their tongue and speak angrily against their neighbours. James 4:17 also has a character of a gnome, very loosely connected with its linear context despite the use of a formal indicator of cohesion – the connective οὖν ‘so’/‘then’. In the case of the structural approach, the verse serves the function of a transition concluding the reflection so far. The compilation of various examples – biblical or those derived from Greek culture or from the world of nature – contributes to the awareness and knowledge of what it means to act in a righteous manner. “The right thing to do” καλὸν ποιεῖν in this context entails first of all acting in accordance with one’s knowledge, faith and beliefs. Again, the narrator juxtaposes the internal aspect (knowledge) and the external aspect (acting) and shows that any discrepancy between them (knowing and failing to do) means a sin. It seems that in this general adage the phrase “the right thing to do” does not simply denote good deeds (the narrator does not use the noun ἔργον) but doing justice understood as obedience to God’s will, expressed in the commandment of love236 (and illustrated by the examples of Abraham and Rahab in 2:21–25). Moreover, 235 Many translations provide a different interpretation, e.g. The New Jerusalem Bible: “the peace sown by peacemakers brings a harvest of justice”. This means that dativus τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην is regarded as a dativus auctoris. 236 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 179.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

213

214

The Structural Commentary

the connotation with righteousness links this verse to 3:18 and this connection in turn leads to the conclusion implying that without the gift of wisdom, whose fruit is the ability to do “the right thing”, man cannot act well even though he knows what should be done. And if he knows and does not act in accordance with the knowledge, he is not integrated but torn, double-minded δίψυχος, and “is guilty of sin”. This conclusion is followed in 5:7–8 by phrases directly addressed to the recipients (the 2nd person plural is used) and the motif of a trial. He calls for patience, applying the verb μακροθυμήσατε which – as has been mentioned above – refers mainly to patience towards other people and their conduct, even if it brings suffering. The call appears both in v. 7 and in v. 8; it also contains the same allusion to the Parousia (although the references are slightly different), so it might be treated as the framework of this microstructure: A. the call for patience until the coming of the Lord B. a farming mini-parable A’. the call for patience. The application of the verb μακροθυμέω in v. 7 in the context of waiting for the Parousia suggests that patience towards other people should continue until (Gr. ἕως) the end times (cf. Matt 18:21–35). The narrator, speaking of the Parousia, uses the phrase παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου which literary means ‘the presence of the Lord’ (cf. the use of the noun παρουσία in 2 Cor 10:10, Phil 2:12). Originally, the term παρουσία denoted the arrival of a dignitary or a king and it appears in such a sense in the LXX – Jdt 10:18 describes the arrival of Judith to Holofernes; 2 Macc 8:12, 15:21 describes the arrival of an army. The problem is that the arrival is not connected in any way to ‘the presence’ or, all the more, to ‘the coming’ of God for the eschatological judgement. As Sophie Laws claims, there is no certain evidence that the term παρουσία was used in reference to the eschatological coming/presence of God on judgement day (on the Day of the Lord) in the communities of pre-Christian, Greek-speaking Judaism.237 References to intertestamental literature are not very convincing (e.g. TAb; TJud or 2 Bar) due to uncertainties concerning the dating of these texts and, in consequence, difficulty in defining the associations between them and James.238 Undoubtedly, the term παρουσία was used in New Testament literature as terminus technicus that refers to the coming of Jesus at the time of the eschatological judgement (cf. 1 Thess 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23 and 2 Thess 2:1).239 This

237 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 208. 238 Ibid., p. 209. 239 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 486.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

means that eschatological connotations of the noun παρουσία in James 5:7 and 8 should not raise doubts or controversies. The understanding of “the Lord” itself may also raise questions as it is not entirely clear if the narrator means here God (the Father) or Christ. On the one hand, in James 3:9, 4:10 and 5:4.10–11, the title is used in reference to God and his presiding over the eschatological judgement. On the other hand – in James 1:1 and 2:1, the title is applied to Jesus Christ and the similarities between the motifs appearing in the mini-parable and in the parables of Jesus, as well as the allusion to Jesus’ predictions of the kingdom of God which is coming (v. 8b),240 confirm the wide use of such imagery and lexis in the context of the second coming of Christ among Christians and suggest that the title “Lord” is used here in accordance with the Christian convention and applies to Christ. The narrator, as usual, does not imply which connotation is closer to his way of thinking and leaves the decision to the recipients who could understand ‘the Parousia of the Lord’ both as the expectation of the eschatological judgement at which God (the Father) will administer justice and will ultimately manifest his mercy241 and as the second coming of Jesus Christ. The mini-parable makes use of motifs well-known i.a. from the parables of Jesus (Matt 13:24–30.36–43). It is introduced with the particle ἰδού, which serves an explanatory function here (it can be translated as ‘therefore’). The main character – a farmer – can be identified neither with God nor with Jesus but rather with those who are called to show patient endurance (towards other people). They should patiently wait μακροθυμέω for the fruit that their endurance will bring. In the context of deliberations about wisdom full of good fruit, we can see here references to the present and to the future: the fruit of wisdom now is patience μακροθυμία and in the future it will bring fruit which has not been specified here but, when we take into account previous eschatological reflection and the sapiential tradition, we may assume that this concerns being saved from judgement and saving one’s own soul. This is why the expected fruit is described here as τίμιος (precious). In the subsequent part of the parable, we can come across certain ambiguity that relates to defining who or what is supposed to “receives the early and the late rains”. The subject of the sentence might be the farmer from the first clause, but it is more probable that the phrase pertains to the “crop from the earth”; thus “the farmer waits for the precious crop/fruit from the earth, being patient with [while waiting for] it until it [the crop/fruit] receives the early and the late rains”. Speaking of two types of rain, the narrator once again refers to nature and climate typical of Palestine242 and to the belief that rain is the gift of God and the coming of rain depends on God’s

240 Compare below. 241 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 408. 242 See above – chap. 1.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

215

216

The Structural Commentary

will (the conviction is based on the story of Elijah to which James alludes in 5:17 as well as e.g. on Deut 11:14, Jer 5:24, Joel 2:23, Zech 10:1). Hos 6:3, in turn, compares the coming of the Lord to the coming of showers, the spring rains that water the earth. The last allusion even more clearly shows the eschatological message of the whole parable: due to patience which is the fruit of wisdom, man endowed with wisdom waits for eschatological judgement that will entail the manifestation of God’s mercy and compassion (cf. James 5:10–11); nobody knows when this will be; still, the judgement is as certain as the early and late rains in the climate of Palestine. In v. 8 the narrator advises his audience to cultivate patience through strengthening of the hearts and predicts that the Parousia/judgement, announced in v. 7b and in the parable, is near. The two verbs στηρίζω ‘to strengthen’ and ἐγγίζω ‘to come’/ ‘to arrive’ help to put the whole reflection concerning patience as the fruit of wisdom in the context of trials already signalled in James 1:2. The verb στηρίζω appears in the NT to indicate strengthening in order to perform a certain task (e.g. 1 Thess 3:2, 2 Thess 2:17, 3:3), or in an eschatological sense (e.g. 1 Thess 3:13), or in the context of suffering (1 Pet 5:10) and is usually a synonym of perseverance, standing firm in faith and being able to confidently follow it in action, not to harbour doubt.243 The last two texts are particularly interesting – in 1 Thess 3:13 we can find a motif of striving for perfection and holiness, similar to tests and trials which are also supposed to lead to perfection, whereas in 1 Pet 5:10 strengthening is juxtaposed with suffering that develops perfection. In James 5:8 the call to be patient (towards other people) and to strengthen the hearts (μακροθυμήσατε καὶ ὑμεῖς, στηρίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν) suggests utmost patience (hence imp. aor., where the aorist indicates the completeness of an activity) that may require strengthening of the heart because it is subject to trials and temptations. Some of these temptations have already been described in 3:1–12 as a harmful activity of the tongue, jumping to hasty (impatient – sic!) conclusions concerning other people and their demeanour, stepping into God’s position of authority to condemn others; we can see here an allusion to the parable from v. 7. Practising such patience and control over the tongue in order not to hurt others leads to perfection and holiness (cf. 1 Thess 3:13) that will be achieved in its fullest form in the end times and will save the patient (and the self-controlled), as those who show mercy, from the judgement without mercy (cf. James 2:13). The eschatological orientation and context of tests and trials is emphasised by the verb ἐγγίζω which in the NT appears in the descriptions of the Parousia preceded by suffering (e.g. Luke 21:20, cf. 1 Pet 4:7).244 The use of ind. perf. act. ἤγγικεν has theological consequences here as it implies that the Parousia of the

243 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 185. 244 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 210.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

Lord has already started and it is in the process of coming near. This brings to mind evangelical phrases about the kingdom of God (e.g. Mark 1:15, cf. Matt 3:2, 4:17, 10:7, Luke 10:9.11) which has been inaugurated with the mission of Jesus and will reach its climax at the time of the Parousia and the return of glorified Christ. We can see here the literary artistry of the implied author of the Letter of James and his skilful use of intertextual strategies. In 5:7–8, images and lexis that take us back to Old Testament presentations of the coming of God to judge his people intertwine with imagery and lexis referring to Christian beliefs and the tradition concerning the teaching of Jesus. To sum up this part of meditation upon wisdom full of good fruits, it must be once again stressed that, as in the preceding part, the most powerfully exposed fruit of wisdom is here righteousness, understood as identifying and obeying God’s will. This time it is combined with peace (3:18) which is of significance particularly in the context of control over the tongue. An untamed tongue brings about annoyance, anger, and anxiety which are the contradiction of wisdom in the same way as usurping God’s authority while judging others is. Patience continued until the Parousia of the Lord is recommended in place of hasty judgements of other people. Control over the tongue and endurance, which may be regarded as the components of righteousness, will bear their ultimate and precious fruit in eschatological times. It is not explicitly verbalised in the text, but we may assume that the fruit will be a merciful treatment of the merciful one on judgement day. The motif of the trials is not as visible here as in the previous chapters; the reason might be that the descriptions are more focused on internal temptations than on external circumstances. Nevertheless, succumbing to the temptation to judge other people, to speak ill of them, and in particular to curse them is a contradiction of righteousness, patient endurance and peacemaking which, combined, constitute wisdom full of good fruits. Still, the examples drawn from culture and nature build up an optimistic conclusion – restraining one’s tongue and patience towards other people are inscribed in human nature and capabilities. But there is also a warning expressed in the form of a gnome: “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, is guilty of sin”, which very strongly underlines the integrity of internal elements (knowledge) and external elements (works). Lack of integrity is in a straightforward manner called a sin. In the description of the subsequent fruits of wisdom, the narrator comes back to the motif of the trials and the motif of integrity discussed at the beginning of the reflection (James 1:2–4). V. 5:13 starts with the verb κακοπαθεῖ which, as has been said, is very general and polysemous, as it points to different types of problems, suffering, trouble, adverse external circumstances and which, as it seems, clarifies the meaning of the noun πειρασμός ‘an ordeal’/‘a trial’ from James 1:2. It is contrasted with the verb εὐθυμεῖ ‘to be happy’ which refers to an emotional state rather than to external circumstances (cf. Acts 27:22.25 – ‘to have confidence’/‘to

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

217

218

The Structural Commentary

hope for the best’).245 Both contrasting verbs are used in ind. praes. act., which suggests continuity, lasting in time, and both are a starting point for addressing God in happiness and in misfortune. Misfortune (associated here with external circumstances and thus representing the external aspect) and happiness (the internal aspect) may be treated as representing the whole by means of binary, contrasting elements, characteristic of the Semitic style; hence, the words seem to denote the need to turn to God all the time, regardless of circumstances. This is reminiscent of the appeal to rejoice in trials (James 1:2) because full joy is composed of elements which give an immediate reason for rejoicing but also of those aspects which seem to be difficult and bring joy in the long term. In misfortune, prayer to God is advised, in happiness – singing psalms. Also here praesens (προσευχέσθω and ψαλλέτω) is used – it indicates continuity of both prayer and singing psalms. Contrary to the opposition misfortune – happiness, the pair of verbs “pray”/“sing songs of praise” can be treated synonymously. The verb προσεύχομαι has a very general meaning (different than e.g. the precise αἰτέω in James 1:5 indicating a prayer of request). It must be specified both in terms of form and of content, and the narrator does it in the verses that follow. The verb ψάλλω is probably, in line with the practice of the author of James, used to denote two things. In the LXX it means playing a stringed instrument – the kinnor (1 Sam 16:16) or singing to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument (e.g. Ps 7:18, 9:12). In the NT, it is used only in reference to singing (1 Cor 14:15, Eph 5:19). We do not know which approach was preferable among the first original recipients of the Letter of James; the ambiguity gives room for the choice of approach on the basis of the accepted practice and provenience of individual recipients, both historical and those who belong to any subsequent generation. The use of the synonyms ‘to pray’ and ‘to sing songs of praise’ as a pair of opposites brings to mind James 3:9–10 and in particular the emphatic: “this ought not to be so”. Now the narrator provides a positive example of what should be done: God should be addressed in all circumstances. Joyful singing (and playing) to God when we are happy seems to be natural, but turning to God in prayer at the moment of misfortune does not have to be obvious, since one may be afraid of a curse (this might be the way to explain – particularly in the case of linear reading – the appearance of the unfinished and accidental remark about Job in 5:11; Job was urged to curse God in his misfortune). Addressing God in all circumstances is a synonym of total trust in God and submission to his will246 which are the signs of righteousness – one of the fruits of wisdom discussed earlier. Here it is combined with the ability to pray constantly.

245 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 438–439. 246 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 190.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

In the subsequent verses, the narrator enumerates both the examples of difficult circumstances, which can be regarded as trials, and different modes of prayer. Ἀσθενεῖ in 5:14 corresponds to κακοπαθεί used earlier, and the similarity is marked by the use of the same form. This also refers to προσευχέσθω “should pray” and προσκαλεσάσθω ‘should call’/‘should send for’. The basic meaning of the verb ἀσθενέω is ‘to be weak’. The lexeme can be used in reference to somatic symptoms (e.g. 2 Cor 10:10, Matt 10:8, 25:36.39, Mark 6:56, Luke 4:40, John 4:46, 5:3.7, 6:2, 11:1–3.6) as well as to describe mental or spiritual conditions (cf. e.g. Rom 5:6, 6:19, 14:1–2).247 It is thus not clear what illness or weakness the author means. The verb ἰάομαι ‘to cure’ in v. 16 does not help much, because it can be used both in a literal and in a metaphorical sense. Moreover, the convention of a circular letter allows the recipients to make their own decisions concerning the application of these recommendations to their particular circumstances. We can guess that the illness or spiritual weakness (despondency) described here is so great that it prevents the sick person from praying; that is why the narrator orders to summon πρεσβύτεροι “the elders”. The identification of “the elders” may cause some problems – also due to the fact that quite often, when functions, organisation or administration in the early church are described, the notions used in the NT are given meanings defined and embedded in ecclesiastical sociolect much later. If we assume that the letter was created comparatively early – in the forties AD, we cannot speak of any hierarchical structure of the church yet,248 although it is assumed that the remark concerning “the elders” in Acts 11:29–30 pertains to the first half of the forties of the first century.249 Most probably in the early period of the existence of the Church (and in particular the Church in Jerusalem), the term ‘presbyter’/‘elder’ had a general meaning, it denoted a person held in considerable respect in a particular community, who was responsible for charity work, for teaching and/or supervision of finances.250 In Jerusalem community the author of the Acts refers to, the term ‘the elders’/‘the presbyters’ could indicate some kind of council consisting of the apostles (from among the Twelve), teachers, prophets and leaders of oikoidal churches.251 The identification of the Twelve with

247 M.C. Albl, Are Any Among You Sick? The Health Care System in the Letter of James, JBL 121 (2002), no. 1, p. 125; K. Warrington, James 5:14–18: Healing Then and Now, “International Review of Mission” 93 (2004), p. 348–350. 248 Cf. B. Reicke, The Epistles, p. 58–59; M. Karrer, Das Urchristlische Altetestament, „Novum Testamentum” 32 (1990), p. 152–154. 249 Many scholars question the historicity of the situation described in Acts 11:28b–30 – the collection of money to be given to the poor during the famine in the forties AD. Cf. W. Gajewski, Charyzmat, p. 130–131. 250 Ibid., p. 131. 251 Ibid., p. 132.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

219

220

The Structural Commentary

‘the presbyters’ is confirmed i.a. by 1 Pet 5:1 (the end of the first century) where the author, who introduces himself in 1 Pet 1:1 as “an apostle of Jesus Christ”, now calls himself συμπρεσβυτέρος “a fellow-elder”. The fact is also confirmed by early Christian literature, e.g. Papias, quoted, among others, by Eusebius of Caesarea, who adds to this group a category of “the disciples of the Lord: If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders – what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say” (HE III 39:4).

As has been said, the circle of ‘the elders’ comprised not only the apostles if, e.g. in Acts 15:6.22–23, there appears a differentiation: ‘the apostles’ and ‘the elders’. It brings to mind descriptions in the gospels which enumerate, among the religious elites, the chief priests and the elders (e.g. Matt 21:23, 16:3, cf. Acts 4:23, 24:1), the scribes and the elders (Matt 26:57) or the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders (Mark 11:26, 14:53, Luke 20:1). If the organisation of the Church in Jerusalem was based on Jewish patterns, we can assume that the role of ‘the elders’ was understood in the similar way both in Jewish and in Christian Jewish circles – as people of authority (intellectual, moral, religious) held in high regard in local communities. The term πρεσβύτερος does not appear in the Proto-Pauline epistles but it can be found in the pastoral epistles which reflect the subsequent organisation of the Church. If we assume that the Letter of James was written quite late, we can point out some analogies between the descriptions of the role of ‘the elders’ in Hellenistic Christian communities and in the community depicted in James. In 1 Tim 5:1–2 and in Titus 2:2 the word πρεσβυτέρος is used in the literal sense in reference to age – ‘the elder’. It has a broader meaning in 1 Tim 5:17 where the responsibilities of ‘the elders’ are enumerated: it is first of all leadership within the community, and then preaching and teaching, which should earn them respect (and/or appropriate wages). The text differentiates between ‘the elders’ who preach and teach and ‘the elders’ who do not provide the ministry – they might be in charge of some administrative tasks within the community or focus on charity work. Titus 1:5–6252 makes a list of the characteristics of presbyters who should be “appointed in every town: this must be a man of irreproachable character, husband of one wife, his children must be believers and not liable to be charged with disorderly conduct or insubordination”. These qualities inspire universal respect which means that also later in the history

252 V. 7 is sometimes also included in the description, and the terms πρεσβυτέρος and ἐπίσκοπος are treated synonymously.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

of the Church, ‘the elders’ were chosen or appointed from among those people who could be moral role models for others. It can thus be seen that the semantic fields of the term πρεσβυτέρος in Acts and in the pastoral epistles largely overlap. Due to the strategy of the narrator of James and the convention of the circular letter addressed to various recipients, including communities of both Jewish and Hellenistic provenience, we can guess that James 5:14 refers to ‘the elders’ understood in the Jewish way as well as ‘the elders’ whose tasks and characteristics are described in the pastoral epistles. However, while Acts and the pastoral letters pertain to general and universal circumstances, James seems to depict a particular and intimate situation: a prayer and anointment of a sick person. The remark about the prayer might mean that ‘the elders’ mentioned here are those members of the community who are held in respect due to their piety, spiritual maturity (James 1:2–4), faithfulness (cf. James 1:5) and perseverance in prayer (cf. James 5:15.17), which can all be summed up as righteousness – we can see at this point the similarity of the semantic fields of the term πρεσβυτέρος in James, Acts and the pastoral letters. It has to be stressed that the elements of leadership are not emphasised in James, which might suggest that ‘the presbyters’ are really older members of the community who are at the same time regarded as wise (endowed with the gift of wisdom) and righteous (obeying God’s will). We should pay attention here to the way in which ‘the elders’ are described: those are πρεσβυτέροι τῆς ἐκκλησίας “the elders of the Church”. Sophie Laws claims that this is the only phrase in the whole letter which does not give rise to any controversy and can be regarded as truly Christian,253 since ἐκκλησία was a typical way in which Christian communities referred to themselves both on the local (e.g. Phil 2) and on the universal level (Col 1:18).254 The ambiguity, characteristic of James, is not helpful as far as the identification of the community is concerned. On the one hand, the convention of the letter might indicate the universal Church; on the other hand, the intimacy of the situation mentioned above may point to some local Church. If we treat the word πρεσβυτέροι as the term denoting respectable leaders of the Church, it is not very probable that they were called to the bedside of every sick person.255 But if we treat it as a sapiential phrase without any associations with leadership, as a synonym of wise, pious and righteous men, then the term might

253 See above – chap. 1 and the theories concerning the interpolation of the phrase Jesus Christ in James 1:1 and 2:1. 254 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 225. 255 Ibid., p. 226; cf. the responsibilities of ‘the elders’ enumerated in the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (VI:1): “And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick […]”, Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians, transl. J. Donaldson, A. Roberts, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm [accessed: 03.09.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

221

222

The Structural Commentary

refer to both a local and a universal community as James’ criteria of wisdom and justice are the same for all types of congregation. We might encounter some difficulty in trying to specify the form of this prayer. The narrator of James describes it as “the prayer” ἐπ’ αὐτόν. The preposition ἐπί with an accusative may have many meanings, i.a. ‘on’, ‘over’, ‘around’, but also ‘together’. It is thus not clear if ‘the presbyters’ are supposed to pray without the active participation of the sick person, gathering around him or her and laying hands on them (cf. Matt 19:13),256 or together with the ill person. Both options are possible, regardless of whether the illness is treated literally or metaphorically as a weakness or despondency. Apart from the prayer, the text also mentions anointing the sick person with oil “in the name of the Lord’. Participium aor. ἀλείψαντες might suggest that this act preceded the prayer but if we take into consideration only the aspect of the aorist, without emphasising the grammatical tense, the anointment may be understood as a nonrecurring activity, complete (the perfective aspect), and accompanied by a prayer.257 This would correspond with James’ hermeneutics of integrity – anointment and prayer are equally important, but only the prayer has been described in some detail. The practice and function of anointment remains unspecified.258 In the NT, the anointment of the sick with oil is also mentioned by Mark (6:13) who uses the same lexis as James and connects it with the mission of the Twelve sent out by Jesus. As has been shown, the term πρεσβυτέροι encompassed also the apostles closest to Jesus, so it may be assumed that the practice originates from this tradition. Unfortunately, the evangelist does not provide any details concerning the act of anointment, either. The practice of anointment itself was obviously quite well known in the ancient world as one of the methods to alleviate suffering. Oil was used to cleanse the wounds (cf. e.g. Luke 10:34), to warm up the body of a sick person, to relieve muscle

256 Such a vision of the prayer over a sick person – with laying hands – comes from Origen who, when quoting James 5:14, adds: “they will place their hands on him” (Homiliae in Leviticum 2.4.5), http:// ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts/0250_origen/04_hom2_on_lev.htm [accessed: 03.09.2019]. 257 P.H. Davids, James, p. 193. 258 This text was the basis for a service called euchalaion, practiced in the early Greek Church. Its name reflects a close relationship between prayer (euch- a short form of εὐχή – ‘prayer’) and anointment with the holy oil (elaion – ἐλαιον – ‘oil’). Quite early, the practice started to be interpreted as one of the sacraments. Since the ninth century, within the Latin Church, the anointment was administered solely by priests. The sacramental character of the anointment was ultimately confirmed by the Council of Trent (DS. 1695) in 1546, and then by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium 11). The text of James 5:14–15 is seen in the Catholic tradition as one of biblical premises of the sacrament of the extreme unction. In Lutheran Churches, the anointment is practiced but it does not have a sacramental character.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

tension, in the case of paralysis or toothaches.259 Anointment was applied for other purposes, too – e.g. cosmetic or hygienic, not associated with sickness (Matt 6:17), or as part of sacral and religious acts like the consecration of priests (e.g. Exod 40:15, Num 3:3). It could also express devotion and commitment (Luke 7:38.46, John 11:2, 12:3); the symbolic anointment of Jesus as a king and for his burial (Mark 16:1) represents the same idea. The act of consecration of a new king and for the burial reveals the symbolic dimension of this practice – the anointed person in a way passes from the sphere of profanum to the sphere of sacrum or to a different dimension; in intertestamental literature, the transition acquires eschatological quality, too (cf. The Apocalypse of Moses 8:2, 9, 13:2–5). It is not a coincidence that in the majority of the cases listed here there appears the same lexeme which is applied by James – ἀλείφω. In accordance with the hermeneutics of integrity, it means that the act of anointment combined with a prayer encompasses both the physical sphere and the spiritual sphere. This is confirmed by the use of the phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου “in the name of the Lord” and by v. 15, which pertains to both spheres. In contrast to James 5:7–8, here the identification of “the Lord” is quite obvious. As the notion of the Church appears in the same verse, connotations of the title ‘Lord’ seem to be fully Christian, which means that the phrase “in the name of the Lord” has been used elliptically without further specification of the Lord as Jesus Christ. Acting, and in particular healing “in the name of the Lord [Jesus Christ]”, reflects the practice described i.a. in Acts 3:6, 4:30, 16:18, Mark 16:17, Matt 7:22, Luke 10:17, here, additionally, the phrase itself brings to mind a liturgical formula, a kind of epiclesis – calling the Lord, that is Jesus Christ, to come down from on high to become present in the healing act.260 The effect of the prayer and the anointment is supposed to be not only physical recovery but also the forgiveness of committed sins. The fact of linking illnesses to sins certainly comes from the Old Testament tradition, according to which weakness/sickness (both in the literal and in the metaphorical sense) is a consequence of a sin, so when the cause is removed (a sin), the effect (an illness) also disappears.261 Echoes of this idea can clearly be noticed in the gospels (e.g. in Mark 1:40–44 where internal, spiritual purification is reflected in the disappearance of the physical symptoms of an illness). In eschatological terms, we can say that healing and forgiving the sins brings life while continuing in sin means death.262 In v. 15 the narrator once again addresses the theme of prayer, this time describing it as ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως “the prayer of faith” (this is the only place in the NT where

259 260 261 262

S. Laws, Commentary, p. 227; see also: K. Warrington, James 5:14–18, p. 354. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 440; M.C. Albl, Are Any Among You, p. 123. W. Gajewski, Charyzmat, p. 139. M.C. Albl, Are Any Among You, p. 132.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

223

224

The Structural Commentary

this expression can be found).263 Prayer is indicated here with the noun εὐχὴ, used in the NT to denote a vow (Acts 18:18, 21:23); combining it with faith reminds us of a promise that to such a prayer (in James 1:5–6 – a prayer made with faith) God responds and bestows his gifts. The juxtaposition of James 5:15 and James 1:5–6 confirms the earlier suggestion that ‘the elders’ in James are those who can pray with faith – they have proven it by praying for wisdom and receiving it. Thus, ‘the presbyters’ is a synonym for people endowed with the gift of wisdom. Now wisdom bears its fruit in the shape of effective, faithful prayer for complete recovery that encompasses both the body and the soul. At the same time, there is a suggestion here that lack of recovery might be the effect of the lack of faith in prayer, of doubt (cf. James 1:6–8). Doubts do not have to mean questioning God’s ability to heal. They rather refer to mistrust in God’s savingoriented, independent will which the praying person, often subconsciously, wants to subjugate.264 “The prayer of faith” would thus mean accepting the superiority of God’s will and total obedience to it (cf. Matt 6:10b). Any attempt to influence God’s independent will by means of a prayer contradicts the notion of “the prayer of faith”.265 For this reason, to play safe, the writer uses the future tense (σώσει “will save/heal”, ἐγερεῖ “will raise” and ἀφεθήσεται “will forgive/will be forgiven”) to describe the desired effects of prayer. In contrast to the typical use of the verb σῴζω in James, the manner in which it is applied in 5:15 does not link it directly to soteriology or eschatology but it basically has an earthly dimension. The literal meaning is stressed – ‘to save’/‘to rescue’ [from illness], although eschatological implications in the background cannot be escaped. The combination of prayer and rescue may sound surprising so, in the subsequent part of the sentence, the first part is explained: ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος “the Lord will raise him”. The lexis used here resembles the gospel imagery used to depict healing, where keeping and raising (Matt 9:6, Mark 1:31, Luke 6:8) often appear, or descriptions in Acts (3:7, 9:41). The epiclesis in v. 14 is explained in a similar way – it is not the fact of addressing God in prayer that saves the sick person but the fact that in prayer God/the Lord/ Jesus Christ is invoked and he has the power to heal.266 This time, the sick person, instead of ἀσθενῶν, is called κάμνων. The second participium very well reflects both physical (Wis 15:9) and mental or spiritual (cf. Job 10:1, Heb 12:3) aspects of illness what, in the case of James’ hermeneutics of integrity, is quite relevant. In 15b the writer refers to the belief of Old Testament provenience, mentioned above (e.g. Deut 28:15.21–22.27–29, Sir 18:21, 38:15, cf. Mark 2:1–12), which assumes that an illness is the result of a sin. Consequently, the prerequisite for full 263 264 265 266

K. Warrington, James 5:14–18, p. 357. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 533. K. Warrington, James 5:14–18, p. 357–358. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 442.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

recovery is the forgiveness of sins. Noteworthy is here the use of the conditional sentence κἂν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ (and if anyone has committed sins, he will be forgiven) with participium πεποιηκώς which denotes sins committed in the past whose effects continue up till the present moment. The conditional sentence suggests the uncertainty of the author about the etiology of the illness, hesitation whether every illness really is the consequence of a sin or not (cf. James 9:2–3). If a certain illness is the derivative of a sin, the sin will be forgiven. The second variant – when the illness is not a derivative of a sin (but e.g. the effect of demonic activity)267 – is not developed by the narrator. In v. 16 we can observe an evident change of tone and – it seems – of the entire situation. The narrator passes from detailed instructions in 5:13–15 to a general appeal and encouragement to confess sins to one another.268 The recipients of this exhortation are, however, hard to identify. The one who suffers and calls for the elders to pray over, around or together with him is not the direct addressee of the appeal (there is an abrupt change from the 3rd person singular to the 2nd  person plural and there is no logic in asking the one who cannot pray to confess sins and to pray). There are no clear indicators in the text which would allow to identify the addressees of the call with ‘the elders’.269 So it seems that verse 16 should be seen as a transition summing up all deliberations concerning the fruits of wisdom as well as tests and trials, starting with 1:2–4. Its transitive character is confirmed by the use of the imp. praes. act. in the 2nd person plural ἐξομολογεῖσθε “confess” and εὔχεσθε “pray”, which describe repetitive activities. Sins enumerated here encompass unsuccessful trials, succumbing to temptation, and in particular the knowledge of what is to be done and failing to do it (4:17) as this kind of negligence has been directly qualified as a sin. Now all those sins should be confessed (cf. 1 John 1:8–9). Verses 3:6.8–10 show that the organ which is the most difficult to tame is the tongue; now it is confessing sins to one another that may pose problems since it undoubtedly requires acknowledging one’s own sinfulness and humility resulting from it.270 Such conduct is implied by the verb ἐξομολογέω which in the NT refers either to professing the majesty of God and glorifying him (e.g. Matt 11:25, Luke 10:21, Rom 14:11, 15:9, Phil 2:11) or to confessing sins (Matt 3:6, Mark 1:5, Acts 19:18). The narrator traditionally combines both meanings – man acknowledges his own sinfulness in relation to the holiness of God, and the confession

267 M.C. Albl, Are Any Among You, p. 135–136. 268 The change is also noticed by P.H. Davids, James, p. 195, and by D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 535, 537, but they link this general statement to the preceding verses and analyse the prayer in the context of healing. 269 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 232; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 536. 270 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 233.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

225

226

The Structural Commentary

of sins is combined with the belief that God forgives them and shows mercy (cf. Prov 28:13, Ps 51[50]:3); for this reason, he should be praised and glorified. Those two aspects are additionally underlined by the call to pray, and the prayer should be humble and full of trust in God’s mercy (cf. humble/perseverant wisdom). The practice of public confession of sins certainly pertains to Jewish customs and is often followed by an attempt to undo the wrong (e.g. Num 5:57). It was also practised in the life of the early Church,271 which is confirmed by remarks in 1 Clem. (51:3–4): “For it is better that a man should make confession concerning his sins, than that he should harden his heart, even as the heart of them was hardened who made sedition against Moses the servant of God”.272 There is no information in James concerning the way in which sins were confessed to one another – whether this actually meant public confession in front of the whole congregation, or whether it was conducted in smaller groups or maybe was limited to the person one has

271 This fragment of the letter in the Roman Catholic Church constitutes an important argument in support of the practice of sacramental penance, called the sacrament of conversion, reconciliation, penance or simply confession (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1423–1424). The Constitution Lumen gentium (11) of the Vatican Council II states: “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example and by prayer labors for their conversion”. In subsequent centuries the custom of confessing sins to one another developed into a confession, practised also in Churches of the Lutheran tradition, although it is derived from different texts than James 5:16. In The Augsburg Confession (XI) we can read: “Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps 19:12. (Ps 19:13)”. The article is commented in more detail in The Defense of the Augsburg Confession (XI), particularly in reference to the constitution Omnis utriusque enacted at the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 and the demand to confess all sins and the frequency of going to confession which is called here by F. Melanchton a sacrament. M. Luther in The Smalcald Articles (VIII Of Confession) claims that “[…] Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people”. In The Small Catechism Luther describes briefly two elements which constitute confession: confessing our sins and receiving absolution. He develops the idea in The Large Catechism, where three types of confession are mentioned: two of them – confessing sins only to God or only to another person – combined with a prayer for forgiveness are derived from The Lord’s Prayer: “and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us”. The context of James 5:16 is best matched by the description of this second type of confession. Apart from these two, Luther distinguishes one more type of confession, which he calls a secret confession; it takes place only in the presence of one brother; The Confessions of the Lutheran Church, transl. F. Bente, W.H.T. Dau, http://bookofconcord. org [accessed: 05.09.2019]. 272 Clement of Rome, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, transl. Ch.H. Hoole, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html [accessed: 05.09.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

actually injured (Matt 18:15, Luke 17:3–4),273 e.g. in the case of slander and/or a curse (cf. James 3:9). The proper reaction and response to the confession of sins is a prayer. Earlier, its close relationship with anointment has been stressed (v. 14); now it is connected with the confession of sins. The link between prayer and confessing sins is strengthened by a polyptoton – the same expression to describe reciprocity, used in both instructions: “confess […] to one another” ἀλλήλοις and “pray for one another” ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων. The narrator might mean here an intercession, which is confirmed in the next sentence with a hyponym δέησις – ‘prayer’, ‘request’. This must be combined with the willingness to forgive – its absence deters or prevents any possibility of addressing God (cf. Matt 5:23–24). This might also be the evidence of the liturgical use of the Lord’s Prayer which contains the motif of reciprocal forgiveness of sins as a prerequisite of being forgiven by God (Matt 6:12). The aim of confessing sins and prayer has been specified as healing – ἰαθῆτε ‘to be cured’. As has been mentioned, the verb can be understood literally (e.g. Matt 8:8.13, 15:28, Mark 5:29, Luke 5:17, 6:18–19, 7:7, 8:47, 9:2.11.42, 14:4, 17:15, 22:51, John 4:47, 5:13, Acts 9:34) or metaphorically (e.g. Deut 30:3, Isa 6:10 repeated in Matt 13:15, John 12:40, Acts 28:27, Isa 53:5 quoted in 1 Pet 2:24, Heb 12:13). It seems that in the context of confessing sins and prayer, the writer’s intention was to emphasise the second meaning – healing would then be the equivalent of forgiving sins and restoration to the community. Since passivum theologicum is used here, it is clear that the one who heals/forgives sins is God, and the use of the aorist indicates complete healing/forgiveness.274 What is again accentuated in this way is the fact that it is not the prayer that heals but God (cf. v. 15), which is then confirmed by the example of Elijah – this is not the prophet’s prayer itself that brings rain or stops it (because it would then have a character of a magic spell), but it is God who sends or prevents rain in response to a prayer (vv. 17–18).275 However, in order not to create an impression that he discredits prayer, the writer concludes that πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη “the prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective”. He uses here the form of a universalizing maxim which enumerates two crucial fruits of wisdom – righteousness and the ability to pray that encompass humility, described earlier, as well as the willingness to forgive and to make intercession for other people. The entire gnome differs lexically from the previous deliberations. A prayer, as has already been said, is denoted with the word δέησις which is a hyponym of a prayer and defines it in more specific terms – it is intercession for those who

273 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 233. 274 P.H. Davids, James, p. 177–179. 275 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 192.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

227

228

The Structural Commentary

confess their sins. The prayer is described with the noun δικαίου in the substantive genitive form – “of the righteous” and by the participium ἐνεργουμένη whose translation poses some problems. In the NT the verb ἐνεργέω refers mainly to the activity of supernatural powers – God (e.g. Gal 2:8, 3:5, 1 Thess 2:13, 1 Cor 12:6, Eph 1:11.20) but also an evil spirit (Eph 2:2). It describes not only the activity itself but also completing a task and its effect; thus, it accentuates the efficacy of an action. In James 5:16 passivum theologicum is used which emphasises the fact that the result of a prayer – here the expected result would be forgiving the sins, a spiritual healing – depends on God and not on a man. The phrase δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη differentiates between the subject of the prayer (the person who is praying) – the righteous one, and the agent who makes the prayer effective – God. The synonym of “the prayer of the righteous” is in v. 15 “the prayer of faith” which also underscores the independent, saving will of God and God’s activity resulting from it, while faith denotes trust and submission to God’s will. The juxtaposition of “the prayer of faith” from v. 15, the maxim from v. 16 and the description of the story of Abraham from 2:21–23 helps to define once again who the righteous one in the Letter of James is. What in the case of Abraham has been depicted in the form of a narrative is now shown through implications concerning prayer. Abraham placed his trust in God and expressed it by means of acting – he submitted to God’s will by offering Isaac and this act was considered as righteousness. The prayer of the righteous one is thus a prayer of someone who has put total trust in God and has submitted to his will. Trust in God, in turn, and submission to his will, is the definition of faith from the phrase “the prayer of faith” as well as the definition of the righteous conduct from the phrase “the prayer of the righteous”. In 5:17–18 the narrator again explains what δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη actually means. And, as in the case of Abraham (and Rahab), he does it by a reference to an Old Testament narrative. This time, the example is derived from 1 Kings 17–18 (in particular 17:1 and 18:1) and it depicts the prophet Elijah – the references are actually not very precise, probably because the Old Testament tradition overlaps here with a later tradition which sees in Elijah, apart from the archetype of a prophet,276 also the model of faith and prayer. And, although it seems at first sight that James’ example is not very fortunate – since the prophet was known for more spectacular activities accompanied by a prayer (e.g. the revival of the son of the widow of Zarephath – 1 Kings 17:17–24, or preparing the burnt offering on Mount Carmel which – in response to the prophet’s prayer – was consumed by the fire sent by God –1 Kings 18:25–39), it seems that according to 2 Ezra 7:106–110 he is called “the man of prayer” just because of the withdrawal of rain and bringing about the

276 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 235; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 450.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is full of good fruits (James 1:2–4, 2:18.21–25, 3:1–12.18, 4:17, 5:7–8.13–18)

drought.277 Moreover, more spectacular examples of the activity of the prophet would strongly emphasise his uncommonness and uniqueness (Sir 48:1–12), and it would hinder the author from calling Elijah ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν a “human being like us”, whereas his aim is convincing the recipients that the demeanour of the prophet is a model available to everyone.278 The illustration chosen by the narrator pertains to the natural environment of Palestine – to the dry and rainy seasons, which brings to mind the previous references to nature – to fresh and salt/brackish water or trees bearing fruit. But the primary goal here is a vivid and convincing presentation of the fact that “the prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective”. The idea of efficient and persistent prayer is expressed by means of a polyptotic phrase of Semitic origin: προσευχῇ προσηύξατο; it literally means ‘he prayed a prayer’, and the intensification of the meaning of the verb is usually translated as “he prayed earnestly/fervently”. The object of the prayer in v. 17 is the drought: τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι ‘that it might not rain’/‘for it not to rain’. The further description of the effect of the prayer is closely related to its content due to the polyptotic use of the same verb βρέχω ‘to rain’, or rather – ‘to send rain’: καὶ οὐκ ἔβρεξεν ‘no rain fell’/‘it did not rain’/‘he sent no rain’. The length of the drought mentioned in James differs from biblical data. 1 Kings 18:1 says that the rain came in the third year of the drought, while James 5:17 (like Luke 4:25) mentions three years and six months. Maybe, by the introduction of apocalyptic symbolism (three and a half is half of seven – regarded as the symbol of completeness and perfection – and it was associated with misfortune, persecution or judgement; cf. Dan 7:25, 12:7, Rev 12:4, 13:5),279 the narrator wants to hark back to tests and trials from 1:2–4 and to eschatological imagery from 5:7–8. The prophet himself was a figure linked to eschatological times and the coming of the Messiah. In this way, the eschatological element would play the role of one of the indicators of the coherence of the whole fragment devoted to wisdom full of good fruit. V. 18. once again stresses the fact that ὁ οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν “the heaven gave rain” in response to Elijah’s prayer. This time the prayer is not additionally described as persistent or fervent, as in v. 17. The phrase ὁ οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν “the heaven gave rain” seems to be a characteristic Septuagintism rather than a surreptitious quotation from 1 Kings 18:1 (δώσω ὑετὸν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς “and I will send rain on the country”). ‘The heaven’ οὐρανὸς can on the one hand be regarded as a synecdoche referring to God and, on the other hand, as an element of a typical Semitic binarism: ‘heaven and earth’. The objectives of such complex ambiguity are 277 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 235. 278 In the tradition recalled by the narrator of James, we can see a departure from the biblical story of Elijah: in 1 Kings 17:1 that is the prophet who responds to God’s call; in James’ version – God responds to Elijah’s prayer. 279 P.H. Davids, James, p. 197.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

229

230

The Structural Commentary

to once again stress the fact that the agent and the benefactor is God, to connect this image to the mini-parable from 5:7–8 and to remind the recipients that the prayer which results from wisdom is characterised by patience, especially in relation to people, and by the willingness to forgive (5:16). Additionally – also in the context of the fruits of wisdom – we can understand this illustration allegorically: God (heaven – cf. wisdom from above) gives generously (rain – cf. James 1:5) his gift (wisdom) to man (the earth), and the man (the earth), due to the gift of wisdom, bears fruit – righteousness, emphasised so many times in the whole passage. In conclusion, we should once again enumerate the fruits of wisdom and make an attempt to systematise them. The narrator undoubtedly considers righteousness to be the principal fruit of wisdom – owing to the gift of wisdom man is able to recognise God’s will and fulfil it, and this is the essence of righteousness. The synonyms for righteousness are here maturity and completeness/integrity, which develop and become perfect in the course of trials and difficulties (1:2–4, 5:13). This is why righteousness as the fruit of wisdom is accompanied by joy (1:2). The examples of Abraham (2:21–24) and Rahab (2:25) serve in the text as illustrations of righteousness, but they also very well fit in James’ hermeneutics of integrity, confirming once again the absurdity of separating faith and works (2:18). The stories of biblical characters also draw our attention to those components of righteousness which may be considered as ‘individual’ fruits of wisdom: total trust in God, willingness to make sacrifice, hospitality. Examples that follow are very universal, they pertain to every man (what is underlined by the use of formulas characteristic of adages – 3:2.8a) so they are illustrated with images relating to culture (3:3–4) and nature (3:5.7–8.11–12). A very important characteristic of a righteous man is, according to James, the ability to control one’s tongue and to refrain from judging and condemning others (3:1–2.6.8b–10). Such self-control would not be possible without wisdom. Love of other people, a positive and compassionate attitude to others is combined here with making peace, and the peace ought to be reflected both in interpersonal relations and the inner peace of an individual person that results from integrity and imitation of God (3:18). In the centre of the passage there is a gnome from James 4:17, which is at the same time a warning: “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, is guilty of sin”. It underscores the integrity of a righteous man, endowed with wisdom. The integrity consists in expressing the inner beliefs on the outside, in an active manifestation of knowledge. Lack of such integrity is directly called a sin. The gnome also has a character of a transition. It is followed by the list of subsequent fruits of wisdom which, combined, constitute righteousness: patience towards other people (5:7–8) and the ability to forgive (5:16). In the final verses of the passage devoted to wisdom full of good fruits, the narrator emphasises the necessity to pray regardless of circumstances (5:13). In this way, he comes back to the motif of tests and trials employed at the beginning. A detailed and extensive

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

description of prayer suggests that it can also be regarded as another principal fruit of wisdom, apart from righteousness. The latter manifests itself by means of works, whereas the prayer as the fruit of wisdom reflects the attitude of a man who is wise and upright in relation to God and other people: he trusts God, he is ready to submit to God’s independent will (5:15), he is humble because he is aware of his own sinfulness, he is willing to confess his sins and to forgive (5:16), he is persistent (5:16b–17). God responds to such a prayer, which is illustrated by the example of Elijah (5:17–18). Now it is easier to reconstruct the features and the demeanour of a person endowed with wisdom (full of good fruit) as well as of a person devoid of the gift: Gifted with wisdom joyful and praying regardless of circumstances – James 1:2, 5:13; mature and integrated – James 1:3–4; knowing the goal of tests and trials – James 1:3–4; confirming faith with works – James 2:18.24, 4:17; trusting God – James 2:21–23; hospitable and taking care of newcomers and those who are in need – James 2:25, 5:14–15a–b; able to control his tongue – James 3:2; blessing God – James 3:9a.10a; blessing other people; making peace – James 3:18; patient towards others – James 5:7–8; able to forgive – James 5:16; aware of his own sinfulness and confessing his sins – James 3:2, 5:16a–b; persistent in prayer – James 5:16d–18; righteous – James 2:21.23–24.25, 3:18

2.8

Devoid of the gift of wisdom unable to rejoice and pray regardless of circumstances; immature and torn; not knowing the goal of tests and trials; separating faith from works – James 2:18; unable to trust God;

unable to control his tongue – James 3:3–12; cursing other people – James 3:9b; unable to make peace; impatient towards others; unable to forgive; rejecting the awareness of his own sinfulness; devoid of perseverance in prayer; unable to pray with faith.

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

1:9

Let the brother who is lowly/humble/poor boast in being raised up, 10 and the rich in being brought low, because the rich will disappear like a flower in the field. 11 For the sun

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

231

232

The Structural Commentary

rises with its scorching heat and withers the field; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. It is the same way with the rich; in the midst of a busy life, they will wither away. 2:1 My brothers, have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ without any acts of favouritism. 2 For if a gold-fingered person and in shining clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here/in a good [place], please”, while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there”, or, “Sit by my foot-rest”, 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonoured the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you? 8 You do well if you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself ”. 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 4:4 Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Or do you suppose that it is for nothing that the scripture says, “God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? 6 But he gives all the more grace; therefore, it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble”. 13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money”. 14 Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that”. 5:1 Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. 2 Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days.

The description of impartial wisdom does not differ from the previous descriptions of other features and attributes of wisdom. The tripartite division of the story of salvation, typical of James, is visible also here. Nevertheless, the reflection is clearly eschatologically oriented and the past elements – mainly the teaching of the prophets – encompass the future as well. A characteristic feature is strong emphasis on the fact that the eschatological judgement over arrogant people who look down on others and do not obey the Law (the commandment to love God and one’s neighbours) starts in the present.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

The past Ktiseology – creating man and sending the spirit to dwell in him – James 4:5; The promise to lift up the humble – James 4:6; The promise of the kingdom to the rich in faith – James 2:5; A prophetic vision of oppression – James 2:6; A prophetic vision of unfaithfulness (adultery) – James 4:5–6; A prophetic vision of judgement – James 5:1–3.

The present Meekness and humility – James 1:9–10; Accumulating wealth – James 1:11c; 5:1–3; Judging others by appearances – partiality – James 2:1–4.9 Committing sin – James 2:9; Keeping or not keeping the commandment of love – James 2:7–8, 4:4; Friendship with the world – James 4:4; Betrayal and enmity towards God – James 4:5–6; Usurping God’s position of power – planning the future – James 4:13–15; The beginning of judgement – James 1:9–11, 5:1–3.

The future Lifting up the humble – James 4:6; Kingdom for the faithful – James 2:5 Condemnation by the Law – James 2:9; Judgement and punishment– James 1:10b–11, 5:1–3.

Numerous references to the Scripture, showing its timelessness and validity, are another element distinguishing this reflection from others. This is accompanied by the accumulation of parables and forms of address which make the reflection about impartial wisdom resemble not so much a diatribe as a sermon. The principal motifs are the warning against jumping into hasty conclusions concerning people on the basis of their appearance, against making distinctions between the better, more respectable ones and the worse, despised ones as well as against favouritism based on this superficial judgement (2:2–4.9). This is combined in lexical terms on the one hand with the description of wisdom as ἀδιάκριτος in 3:17 (“without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy”)280 and on the other hand with making distinctions, with instability and double-mindedness which are all hidden in the verb διακρίνω (2:4) derived from the same root κριν-. Not only does the narrator show the absurdity of such behaviour, based on putting one’s trust in wrong, ephemeral things (1:10b–11,

280 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 164.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

233

234

The Structural Commentary

2:6–7, 4:4–5.14, 5:1–3a), but he also contrasts it with God’s principles and the divine will expressed by means of the Law (1:9–10a; 2:5.8, 4:6.13.15). What is noteworthy in the reflection upon impartial wisdom is a clearly concentric structure. The framework is set by two parables – 1:9–11 and 5:1–3, both eschatologically oriented and both addressed first of all to those who pay too much attention to wealth and honours, both containing a warning. The framework is filled with other parables/illustrations – 2:2–4 and 4:13–14 and the centre is given to the commandment to love one’s neighbour – 2:8 (a positive aspect), surrounded by negative examples showing how the commandment is violated by those who are not led by impartial wisdom – 2:6–7 and 2:9. The parables and examples are linked by means of transitions that comprise sentences referring to equal treatment of all people: A. A parable about a rich man and his evanescent grandeur, combined with a warning – 1:9–11; B. A transition with a precept – 2:1; C. A parable (example) about the treatment of people in a congregation – 2:2–4; D. A transition – a rhetorical question – 2:5; E. Treating others; a negative example – 2:6–7; F. The commandment to love one’s neighbour – 2:8; E’. Treating others; a negative example and a warning – 2:9; D’. A transition – rhetorical questions and an apophthegm – 4:4–6; C’. A parable (an example) about profits – 4:13–14; B’. A transition with a precept – 4:15; A’. A parable about wealth – 5:1–3. The negative assessment of making distinctions among neighbours on the basis of their wealth and social position is combined with references to the Scripture which not only underscore the necessity of equal treatment of all people, but they actually elevate the humble, the poor and the despised. In combination with the warning against judgement, the references create an image of God’s inversive order, what brings to mind the way God’s kingdom is organised in Jesus’ teaching (Mark 9:35). The first parable starts with a call addressed ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινός “a brother who is lowly/humble/poor” (1:9)281 and to ὁ πλούσιος “the rich” (James 1:10a) in reference to whom the narrator does not directly use the term “brother”, but the parallel construction in vv. 9a and 10a, where a predicative expression is used (ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινός), helps to easily identify the omitted element ([ὁ ἀδελφὸς]

281 See below the correct meaning of the word ταπεινὸς.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

ὁ δὲ πλούσιος). Already at the very beginning of the reflection concerning impartial wisdom, ταπεινοί and πλούσιοι are approached in the same way – as the recipients of a seemingly paradoxical precept expressed in the form of the 3rd person of imp. praes. act., which suggests permanence of the attitude described here: καυχάσθω “let [the brother] boast/take pride”– ταπεινός “in being raised up”, and πλούσιος “in being brought low”. What might pose a problem is defining the identity of recipients described as ταπεινοί, and πλούσιοι. When the text is read in a linear and literal manner, the distinction and classification of someone as belonging to one or the other group is made on the basis of socio-economic conditions of the community to which the letter was addressed.282 However, when James’ predilection for more general and ambiguous explanations is taken into consideration, it is difficult to accept this approach. Another argument against such simple identification may be the literary convention – a circular letter that should refer to a more general audience than one particular community, as well as the main message of the fragment – a warning against classifying people on the basis of appearances. The terms ταπεινός and πλούσιος should thus be interpreted in a less literal manner, with reference to internal rather than external characteristics. Accordingly, ταπεινός might mean here not so much a poor person as someone who is modest, humble, meek, considered and considering himself to be of little significance and for this reason scorned by those who are guided by appearances. This is confirmed by James 1:10b, where the same lexeme appears, this time used as part of a polyptoton in the form of a noun – ταπείνωσις translated as ‘humility’ and not as ‘poverty’. “The rich” πλούσιος in 1:10a is not encouraged to be proud of poverty but to be proud of his demeanour full of humility towards God and other people. The verb ταπεινόω in James 4:10, discussed in detail in the chapter concerning humble/ compassionate wisdom, is understood in a similar way.283 Consequently, it could be assumed that ταπεινοί, are those who – regardless of their social and financial status – have humbled themselves before God, which means they have acknowledged their sinfulness, submitted themselves to God and have trusted him (the latter will be developed antithetically in James 4:13–15 and in 5:1–3). They may thus identify themselves with those who have already received the gift of wisdom or with those who are ready to receive it (James 1:5).284 The humble may certainly happen to be poor at the same time (cf. Amos 2:7, 8:6) but the aspect which seems to be emphasised here is the contrast between the humble and the arrogant and

282 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 157; D. Warden, The Rich and Poor in James: Implications for Institutionalized Partiality, JETS 43 (2000), no. 2, p. 249–251. 283 See above. 284 R. Crotty, Identyfying the Poor in the Letter of James, “Colloquium” 27 (1995), no 1, p. 17.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

235

236

The Structural Commentary

supercilious, like in James 4:6 where the antagonism is authenticated by a quotation from sapiential literature – Prov 3:34.285 The word πλούσιος should not be understood in purely material terms, either, although the economic aspect is more visible here than in the case of “the humble” and it is elaborated on in the second part of James’ reflection (4:13–15, 5:1–3). It might seem at first sight that in 1:9–10a the writer has used a typical opposition the humble – the rich,286 but actually the point is to demonstrate that these two notions can coexist side by side. “The rich” may be modest and humble at the same time – it all depends on their attitude to wealth and social position. Hence, the narrator does not criticise wealth itself but human attitude to riches (cf. Sir 31:5–11), what is confirmed by verbum regens for vv. 9 and 10a – the verb καυχάομαι ‘to boast’/‘to be proud’/‘to hope’ (discussed in the chapter on humble/compassionate wisdom – James 4:16). Previously the verb has been used in the context of relying on one’s own strength and taking pride in one’s own spiritual competence; now it is about relying on and taking pride in one’s own wealth and high social status.287 Both attitudes are in clear contradiction to the submission to God and both are condemned by the author of the letter. Real, eschatological ‘exaltation’ – ὕψος – by God is the result of ‘humiliation’, it is not of material or earthly nature but it has a transcendental and supernatural character (cf. Luke 24:49, Eph 4:8). Departure from the most obvious connotations associated with the terms ταπεινός and πλούσιος in favour of their more implicit and less obvious meanings is a good starting point for further reflection not only upon impartiality and judging by appearances but also on the inversion characteristic of the divine order and on eschatological times.288 The absurdity of pinning one’s hopes on riches and taking pride in wealth is illustrated in James 1:10b–11 with a mini-parable which adapts a popular motif of the passing of time demonstrated on the example of vegetation. The question arises if the image refers only to transience or if it carries any eschatological connotations e.g. of judgement. The promise of exaltation, inconspicuously mentioned in 1:9, seems to impart an eschatological sense to it. On the other hand – the lexis suggests the example should only be seen as an illustration of the vanity and transitory nature of wealth and a potential elliptical indication of the stability, unchangeability and faithfulness of God (cf. e.g. Isa 40:6–8, Ps 103[102]:15–17, where the second part of the opposition, the one referring to God, is explained). The knowledge of the

285 See: B. Adamczewski, Jakub, p. 79, where the author claims that “the antithesis of wealth and poverty is […] for the author of the Letter of James not so much of economic nature, but it has above all an axiological and theological character”. 286 Cf. D. Warden, The Rich and Poor, p. 249–250. 287 Cf. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 157. 288 C.L. Winbery, The Attitude Toward Wealth in the Letter of James, “Theological Educator” 34 (1986), p. 28.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

strategy of the narrator who frequently accumulates various meanings and levels of understanding (e.g. literal and metaphorical) makes it possible to accept both interpretations. The passing of time is illustrated in the first image twice: in the comparison in 1:10b: ὅτι ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου παρελεύσεται (will disappear like a flower in the field) and in the conclusion to the whole parable in 1:11b: οὕτως καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ μαρανθήσεται (it is the same way with the rich; in the midst of a busy life, they will wither away). What draws attention here is the noun πορεία which can mean both a journey (e.g. journey as a metaphor of life) and a pursuit of wealth, as well as the verb μαραίνομαι, which in the NT can be found only in James, but in the LXX it pertains to the fading of flowers as an illustration of impermanence (cf. Job 15:30, 24:24). Depending on the way in which the phrase ὁ πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ μαρανθήσεται is read, the conclusion of the parable acquires a different dimension: the variant “the rich will fade in pursuit of wealth” – expresses regret that the rich have devoted their lives only to this one aspect and have not stored up any other treasures (Matt 6:19–20),289 while the second variant: “the rich […] will wither away” (or “the life of the rich will wither/fade”) implies the threat of total eschatological annihilation.290 As can be seen, the narrator already at the very beginning of the reflection concerning impartial wisdom treats the humble and the rich equally, provided that the rich demonstrate humility, realise how perishable wealth is and do not boast of it. Such an approach is probably based on sapiential tradition expressed i.a. in the egalitarian apophthegm from Sir 10:22: “The rich, the noble, the poor, let them pride themselves on fearing the Lord” as well as in the positive presentation and evaluation of the rich man who does not deify his possessions and does not build up his position on them from Sir 31:8: “Happy the rich who is found to be blameless and does not go chasing after gold”. It turns out, however, that the daily experience of the lives of the rich, which also finds its reflection in the Scripture, differs from this ideal and that is why, as the meditation continues, the writer seems to refer to the rich with growing distance, harshness, and he more and more emphatically warns them against God’s judgement. The apostrophe ἀδελφοί μου “my brothers”, used transitively in 2:1, underlines the egalitarian character of the message.291 Now the egalitarianism and the order to be impartial are shown as the consequence of faith “in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ”. This is one of two places in James where the name of Jesus Christ is explicitly mentioned,292 but the addition in the form of a genetive τῆς δόξης – ‘of glory’ 289 290 291 292

Ibid., p. 29. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 164. M.D. Fiorello, The Ethical Implication of Holiness in James 2, JETS 55 (2012), no 2, p. 557. See above – chap. 1.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

237

238

The Structural Commentary

makes the phrase τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης difficult to translate and interpret. First of all – the genetive of ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ may be understood as genetivus obiectivus, describing the content of faith, but it can also be understood as genetivus originale – faith coming from ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’, as his gift. Secondly, the cluster ‘our Lord Jesus Christ of glory’ does not appear anywhere in the NT and there are no direct parallels which could help to interpret the phrase.293 The meaning of the genitive phrase τῆς δόξης can be analysed from the point of view of its position.294 It can refer to the whole expression ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ and be understood as an adjective – ‘our glorious Lord Jesus Christ’; it can also pertain to Jesus only and still function as an adjective ‘our Lord Jesus, the glorified Christ’. It is also possible to treat the noun ‘glory’ as an apposition of explanatory nature: faith in ‘the glorified one, that is in our Lord Jesus Christ’ (or, to preserve the word order of the Greek text, faith in ‘our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorified one’295 ). In all these cases, the term ‘glorified’ would be synonymous to ‘exalted’ and would reflect the original Christian kerygma (Acts 2:36). However, if we wish to preserve the nominal structure, we may treat the modifier ‘of glory’ as a part of an elliptical expression – ‘our Lord Jesus Christ [the Lord] of glory’ or ‘our Lord Jesus Christ [full] of glory’. In both cases, this would be on the one hand an allusion to Old Testament titles applied to God (e.g. Ps 24[23]:8.10, 29[28]:3, Zech 2:12), and on the other hand – a reference to Christian tradition (np. 1 Cor 2:8, John 1:14). Some light on how the Old Testament image of God as ‘God/King of glory’ can be translated into the New Testament Christological notion of ‘the Lord of glory’ is shed by 2 Pet 1:17: “For he received honour and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased’” as well as by Heb 1:3: “He [the Son] is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being”. The double connotations – the implicit one to God and the explicit one to Jesus Christ296 – are most probably intended here. The addition ‘of glory’ in Christological titles aims at reminding who in fact deserves all the glory and honour – God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, but not a man,297 not even the one who is rich and very well dressed (2:2–4). Glorification is an act of God’s independent and saving will and, when it pertains to people, it is

293 See: P.H. Davids, James, p. 106. 294 In the minuscules 436. 1448. 1611 the sequence of words is: τῆς δόξης τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 295 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 178. 296 J.B. Adamson, James, the Man, p. 23 interprets glory, the attribute of Jesus Christ, as God’s presence – the Shekhinah; see also the difference between theophanic and eschatological meanings in S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 179–180. 297 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 235.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

combined with eschatological exaltation (e.g. Phil 3:21, Col 3:4, 2 Thess 2:14). The writer thus claims that all praise and glory belong to God and to Jesus Christ, and the faith in Jesus Christ requires that all believers treat one another in the same way, “without any acts of favouritism” of the rich, glorifying them and surrounding with earthly honours, and without belittling the modest and humble,298 thus depriving them of eschatological glory. We can track down in James 2:1 references to the hermeneutics of integrity. “Faith” πίστις in Jesus Christ and faith coming from him is seen in a holistic manner as it encompasses both internal aspects (the message pertaining to Jesus Christ) and external aspects – treating everybody in the same way, without evaluating people on the basis of appearance, which is implied by the expression ἐν προσωπολημψίαις. The subsequent verses unfold in the form of a parable the meaning of the noun προσωπολημψία usually translated as ‘favouempharitism’, ‘partiality’. Etymologically, however, the term means ‘raising one’s face’ and most probably is the translation of the Hebrew expression ‫ ָנָשׂא ָפ ִנים‬which denoted showing respect and kindness (cf. Lev 19:15, Deut 10:17–18). In James 2:1 the term προσωπολημψία is used in the plural, what might suggest that the different types of kindness (or lack of them) pertain to various aspects – material, social, behavioural, racial, national or even those related to health,299 although the narrator has decided to illustrate only the first two of them. The first example shedding light on the meaning of the noun προσωπολημψία (James 2:2–4) has the form of a conditional sentence with a very complex narrative dependent clause (protasis) – vv. 2–3 and a shorter main clause (apodosis) – v. 4. The conditional in the protasis – εἰσέλθῃ, ἐπιβλέψητε, εἴπητε, and the ind. aor. form in the apodosis – διεκρίθητε, ἐγένεσθε suggest that what the narrator has in mind is a hypothetical, imaginary situation characteristic of the illustration within the narrative but not of the extratextual reality,300 so he uses modus eventualis, like in James 2:15–16.301 What draws our attention in 2:2 is the use of the word συναγωγή, ‘synagogue’. It can be understood in a very precise and physical sense as a building, a hall, a gathering place of a certain congregation (like e.g. in Josephus, Philo of Alexandria or in Matt 23:6, Mark 12:39).302 Such understanding of the word is evidenced by the

298 Z. Żywica, Wiara i moralność wczesnych Kościołów chrześcijańskich w świetle Listu Jakuba, “Studia Warmińskie” 38 (2001), p. 61; S. Laws, Commentary, p. 97. 299 D.J. Moo, The Letter, s. 236. 300 P.H. Davids, James, p. 107 and S. Laws, Commentary, p. 97–98 claim that the description reflects at least partially real relations within the community to which the letter is addressed. 301 See above – chap. 2.6. 302 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 182.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

239

240

The Structural Commentary

remark about directing newcomers to their seats in 2:3303 (cf. Matt 4:23, 6:2.5, 9:35, 10:17, 13:54, 23:6, Mark 1:39, 6:2, 12:39, Luke 4:44, Acts 17:1.17, 18:4.7.26). ‘The synagogue’ may also be understood as a reference to the gathering (community) of Israel, regardless of where it is (e.g. Exod 12:3.47, 16:1.2.9.10, 17:1, Lev 4:14.15, 8:3.4, Num 8:20, Judg 20:1). There are no clear clues helping to specify what kind of gathering it is or if it has a liturgical or a judicial character (Ps 74[73]:2, 82[81]:1, 111[110]:1, Prov 5:14, Sir 4:7, 41:18, 46:14), who its participants are (cf. the commission of scribes in 1 Macc 7:12 and the sinful society in Sir 16:6, 21:9). Some commentators claim that the narrator is referring here to the assembly of Jewish Christians or a Jewish messianic community.304 Others see in the narrative a mixed community composed of Jewish and Hellenistic Christians; still others consider it to be a description of judicial assembly of the rabbis.305 When we read the narrative in the context of James 2:1, we can assume that what is meant here is an assembly of those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, a gathering of as universally Christian nature as the assembly mentioned in The Shepherd by Hermas (Commandment Eleventh 43:9),306 where neither the religious or national identity of the members of the gathering nor its aim are specified. This would fit neatly into the convention of a circular letter and the convention of a parable that includes some elements of a hyperbole, into James’ tendency to universalise the message as well as into the egalitarianism which is the main theme of the passage. Moreover, the author most probably again uses here the strategy of polysemy, so characteristic of the Letter of James, where the exact meaning depends on the particular situation, competence and needs of the recipients. As has already been mentioned, the modus eventualis form makes us look at the situation described in the passage as at an imaginary event and not a reference to any particular extratextual circumstances. Such an assumption is confirmed by the hyperbole used in the illustration, characterised by suggestive, exaggerated307 descriptions of the characters, the first one depicted as “gold-fingered […] and in shining clothes”, and the second one who is supposed to sit “by the foot-rest”. James’

303 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 100. 304 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 182, 183. 305 R.B. Ward, Partiality in the Assembly: James 2:2–4, “Harvard Theological Review” 62 (1969), p. 89–95 enumerates several similarities between the description in James 2:2–4 and the judicial assemblies depicted in the OT and in the Talmud. 306 “When then the man who hath the divine Spirit cometh into an assembly of righteous men, who have faith in a divine Spirit, and intercession is made to God by the gathering of those men, then the angel of the prophetic spirit, who is attached to him, filleth the man, and the man, being filled with the Holy Spirit, speaketh to the multitude, according as the Lord willeth” The Shepherd of Hermas, transl. J.B. Lightfood http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html [accessed: 28.09.2019]. 307 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 186, calls the description a caricature, an exaggerated presentation.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

characters very much resemble the figures from the parable in Luke 16:19–21. “The gold-fingered” χρυσοδακτύλιος rich man (although it must be noted that the term πλούσιος is not used here) is the one who is probably wearing a gold ring on each finger and has a glittering, shining robe ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ (perhaps made of silk or satin). Cornelius in Acts 10:30 (cf. Rev 15:6) describes angelophany in a similar way, which suggests that the characters in James’ parable may be interpreted on two levels. The first one refers to the visual impression and the external aspect, and the second one refers to conclusions which might be drawn on the basis of this impression308 and to the internal aspect. Thus, the “gold-fingered” character “in shining clothes” would be considered externally attractive as well as pure and beautiful internally [like an angel]. Such clothing earns him respect. This description is contrasted with the portrayal of the other character depicted as πτωχός. The notion signifies someone who is poor but also shabby and regrettable. The former aspect is underlined by the attire – ἐν ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι “in dirty clothes”. Since the adjective ῥυπαρός has been used in 1:21a in the description of dirt and impurity in a metaphorical sense, we can assume that the double meaning is hidden here as well. Thus, πτωχός is someone who, due to his appearance, is considered ‘impure’ also in the spiritual sense. In English the meaning would be best conveyed by the word ‘wretch’ which encompasses both physical and moral ‘wretchedness’. This twofold interpretation of the “poor person in dirty clothes” generates contempt.309 Behind the double image, we can also find a rich network of Old Testament images and references. The Greek term πτωχός is the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫ׇﬠ ׇנו‬, more often encountered in the plural as ‫( ֲﬠ ׇנ ׅוים‬Ps 69[68]:30, Isa 29:19, Amos 2:7), and refers to people who are ‘poor’ in the spiritual sense, and thus acknowledging their total dependence on God – they are ‘humble’, ‘submissive’ (cf. Matt 5:3 where we come across the phrase “the poor in spirit”). Hence, in James’ reflection upon impartial wisdom πτωχός from 2:2–3 would be the synonym for ταπεινός from 1:9. The way in which appearance and a hasty judgement concerning morality influence the hypothetical reactions of the recipients is depicted in v. 3. The verb ἐπιβλέπω, in etymological terms clearly pertaining to seeing (cf. βλέπω – ‘to see’/‘to look’), indicates ‘paying particular attention’, ‘respect’, or even ‘worshipping’. This is a reference to 2:1 where the narrator suggests that only God deserves honour and praise. In practice, however, the one who happens to be glorified is someone who, on the basis of a cursory first impression, seems to be rich, good and pious. Such a man is offered an honourable seat σὺ κάθου ὧδε καλῶς “sit here well/comfortably” 308 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 183 rightly points to the fact that clothing is not merely body covering, but it could indicate gender, status or social roles (Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 11:14–15), origin, nationality (2 Macc 4:12), occupation (Eph 6:14–17), etc. 309 See below – chap. 2.9.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

241

242

The Structural Commentary

or “have a seat here, please” or “have a seat here/in a good [place], please”310 (cf. Matt 23:6–7). The polite invitation stands in stark contrast to the behaviour towards the other character who, due to his “dirty clothes”, is regarded as ‘a wretch’. He is not even offered a seat – hence στῆθι “stand”, or is shown a humiliating place on the floor – at somebody’s “foot-rest”. The expression ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιόν μου is meaningful here (it is strengthened by an alliteration) since its objective is illustrating the disdain and it is, at the same time, one of the indicators of a hyperbole and, consequently, of the hypothetical character of the described scene: “a foot-rest” ὑποπόδιόν itself is a low piece of furniture and one cannot be offered a lower seat than the floor by its side. V. 4, which, as has already been noted, is the apodosis of the conditional sentence beginning in v. 2, has the form of rhetorical questions that require positive answers. The questions aim at stimulating reflection in the recipients, concerning their conduct. The first question refers to making distinctions among people. It starts with the negative form of the verb διακρίνω (here: ind. aor. pass. – διεκρίθητε). The verb διακρίνω may denote ‘distinctions among people’ (frequent in Hellenistic literature),311 or even controversy, but it can also mean ‘assessing’, ‘judging’ (like in the LXX),312 as its root κριν- suggests. Both meanings fit the context, and both, in combination with the remaining part of the sentence, create a parallelism with a polyptotic play on words διεκρίθητε – κριταί (“judged” – “judges”) characteristic of Semitic syntax. The variant “do you not judge one another and do you not become judges who judge wrongly/in a false way” may be obviously treated as synonymous parallelism; nevertheless, the variant “do you not make distinctions among yourselves and do you not become judges who judge wrongly/in a false way” may be seen as climactic parallelism which combines internal aspects – the judgement, with external aspects – treating others on the basis of conclusions drawn from the false judgement. The narrator probably integrates both possible options of understanding. In the case of the latter, he emphasises the hermeneutics of integrity, in the case of the former, he underscores the inner conflict characteristic of a man defined in James as δίψυχος. It is not a coincidence that in James 1:6, where δίψυχος is described, there appears the same verb διακρίνω. The context of impartial wisdom seems quite obvious here – someone who judges by appearance and acts on the basis of this judgement is a man who is internally torn, devoid of wisdom he is not even capable of asking for. In the second part of the parallelism, we come across a remark about judges κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν, seen by some commentators as a reference to real

310 The adverb καλῶς can be used as a salutation. 311 R.B. Ward, Partiality in the Assembly, p. 93, fn. 26. 312 Ibid., p. 93, fn. 27.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

lawsuits.313 It is, however, more probable that it is just an allusion to Lev 19:15 which in fact pertains to judicial circumstances,314 but there is no certainty that this aspect has actually been transposed to James – the description might very well refer to mental judgement which is then reflected in the way we treat others, and the treatment resembles a verdict delivered by judges led by false opinions and bad will (cf. Matt 15:19, Luke 5:22, 9:46–47, 24:38).315 V. 5 constitutes another transition marked, inter alia, by the slightly more complex apostrophe ἀδελφοί, μου ἀγαπητοί, “my beloved brothers”, followed by a rhetorical question. This time, the narrator refers in it to God’s choice and to a promise, two very typical OT motifs. The Old Testament origin is additionally accentuated with the verb ἀκούσατε “listen”. The use of the imp. aor. form suggests paying full attention (listening with one’s whole heart – cf. 1 Kings 3:9) but it is also related to the calls addressed to Israel (Deut 6:3–5, Mic 1:2, Joel 1:2, Isa 7:12 cf. Matt 13:18, 15:10, 21:33 and Acts 15:13;316 22:1). Moreover – in accordance with James’ hermeneutics of integrity – it assumes listening and putting what one hears into action. In this way, the narrator prepares his recipients to listening (which involves also thinking and understanding, as has been shown in the description of wisdom obedient to the Law and the analysis of James 1:22–25, 2:10–12),317 and to keeping the commandment to love one’s neighbours, mentioned in James 2:8. The word used here, πτωχός, like before, carries a double meaning which underlines the universal nature of the message. This fact may be seen as the confirmation of the suggestion that in the meditation upon impartial wisdom πτωχός and ταπεινός are synonyms whose aim is to draw the attention of the recipients to the moral and spiritual sphere, too. Here it is additionally evidenced by the phrase in the dative “the poor in the world” – πτωχὸς τῷ κόσμῳ which can be understood possessively318 – “the poor [belonging] to the world”, locatively – “the poor in this world” or as the reflection of human superficial seeing and judgement – “the poor [in the eyes of] this world”.319 The world is obviously evaluated negatively here, like in 4:4. The non-material variants of the meaning of the noun πτωχός very well interact with the next phrase: πλούσιος ἐν πίστει “rich in faith”. This corresponds to the situation described in 1:9–10a where ‘the rich’ πλούσιος could be simultane-

313 314 315 316 317 318

Ibid., p. 89–95. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 242. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 190. In Acts 13:15 such a way of addressing the audience is ascribed to James himself. See above – chap. 2.5. Such reading with a change of the dativus to the genetivus τοῦ κόσμου is suggested by Ac C2 P Y 5. 81. 307. 436. 442. 642. 1243. 1448. 1611. 1735. 1852. 2492 Byz ff. 319 M. Jackson-McCabe, The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James, JBL 122 (2003), no. 4, p. 708.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

243

244

The Structural Commentary

ously ‘the humble’ ταπεινός; now ‘the wretch’ πτωχός can be at the same time ‘the rich’ πλούσιος (cf. Matt 5:3.5, Luke 6:20, GTh 54320 ). As has already been mentioned, in the rhetorical question, the motif of the promise of choice and exaltation – in the Old Testament tradition referring both to the whole nation and to individual people (e.g. Deut 4:37–38, 7:7–8, 14:2, Ps 9:19, 18[17]:28, cf. Luke 1:48.52–53) – is combined with the motif of inheriting the kingdom of God by ‘the poor’ (πτωχοί), present in the teaching of Jesus (Luke 6:20, Matt 5:3, GTh 54).321 The intention of such a combination seems to be clear – it is showing God’s viewpoint and assuming the divine perspective by the recipients of the Letter of James by avoiding the assessment of others on the basis of their appearance and behaviour and thus preserving impartiality. The recollection of the promise of the inheritance of God’s kingdom is accompanied by one more phrase describing the heirs – they are those who ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν “love him [God]”. This is another reference to the OT (Exod 20:6, Deut 5:10), where the love of God is manifested by keeping his commandments. The Letter of James suggests, as it has been accentuated a number of times, that submission to God’s will and obeying the commandments is only possible after receiving the gift of wisdom. The final remark concerning perpetual and permanent love of God (such is the sense of the use of ind. praes.) combines the first commandment of love with the second one and, consequently, underlines the complementarity and inseparability of the whole commandment that summarises all the other divine commands. The message conveyed by v. 5 is positive, it mentions the elevation of πτωχοί, but vv. 6 ad 7 provide another example of the conduct condemned by the narrator. In contrast to the hypothetical situation presented in the parable 2:2–4, now, there appears an accusing ascertainment of elliptical nature, with an emphatically used personal pronoun ὑμεῖς ‘you’: ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠτιμάσατε τὸν πτωχόν “you have dishonoured the poor/the humble”322 (cf. Prov 14:21, 22:22). There is no reference here to the honouring of the rich, very clearly indicated in the parable. Those are, however, the ironic rhetorical questions that pertain to this part which is comparatively easy to reconstruct: οὐχ οἱ πλούσιοι καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμῶν “[you have honoured the rich but], is it not the rich who oppress you?” καὶ αὐτοὶ ἕλκουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς κριτήρια “and is it not they who drag you into court?” (v. 6), οὐκ αὐτοὶ βλασφημοῦσιν τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς “is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?” (v. 7). In 2:6 we come across the verb καταδυναστεύω, used in the LXX to describe the exploitation of the poor (Amos 4:1) or 320 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 103; cf. A.J. Batten, Rotting Riches. Economics in the Letter of James, “Vision” 14 (2014), no. 1, p. 42, who analyses the relationship between the imagery used in James and in the Q source. 321 M. Jackson-McCabe, The Messiah, p. 708; cf. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 194. 322 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 197, combines 2:6a with v. 5.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

of the widows and orphans (Ezek 22:7) by the rich. It implies using different types of oppression – starting with the physical level, through economic, social or legal spheres (cf. Hab 1:4), up to the sphere of religion (cf. James 2:7).323 This might suggest that some real acts of violence are actually alluded to here, in particular acts of juridical injustice towards the poor,324 the humble or the pious, which have been and are committed and thus acquire a universal character (Matt 10:17–25, Mark 13:9–13, Luke 12:11). Generally speaking, however, the series of ironical questions aims at proving to the recipients how irrational judging by appearance and acting on the basis of such judgement is. It is harmful not only to the person who is wrongly judged but also to the judges themselves. The question in v. 7 pertains to blasphemy. The narrator uses the verb βλασφημέω which is usually applied to a blasphemy pronounced against God (cf. Matt 9:3, 26:65, 27:39 Mark 2:7, 3:28–29). Here the meaning of the term has most probably been broadened so as to encompass, apart from the blasphemy of God (or the name of God), also the slander and/or curses uttered against people who derive their actions and conduct from divine orders and their faith in God and in Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 10:30, Rom 14:16, 1 Pet 4:4).325 The phrase τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς “the excellent name that was invoked over you” reveals its Semitic provenience as it reveals the respect that should be paid to the name of God, the name that should not even be pronounced (cf. Matt 6:9b), and which here indicates the attachment to God/Christ (Isa 43:7),326 underlined by the fact of defining the name as the one ‘that was invoked’/‘pronounced over you’327 (cf. Deut 28:10, 2 Macc 8:15). Apparently, what is meant here is not lack of respect for “[one’s own] excellent name” but a slander or curse associated with conduct or behaviour resulting from someone’s attachment to God and/or Christ. “The excellent name” would thus refer to those who believe in God and, in the immediate context to which the narrator refers – to those who “have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1). In this way, further aspects of the meaning of the terms ταπεινός and πτωχός are also highlighted – they are the ones who, due to their faithfulness to God/Christ, are humiliated and exploited by others. The negative examples are followed in v. 8 by a positive observation which seems to constitute the core of the meditation upon impartial wisdom. The idea is expressed by means of a conditional sentence but, since both the protasis and the apodosis include the ind. praes., it can be understood as modus realis or even

323 324 325 326 327

Ibid., p. 198. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 250. M.D. Fiorello, The Ethical Implication, p. 565. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 251; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 200. The phrase is sometimes interpreted as a reference to baptizing in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor 6:11), S. Laws, Commentary, p. 105.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

245

246

The Structural Commentary

modus universalis, serving to present a commonly accepted rule in the form of a statement. Impartiality is here directly derived from the commandment to love one’s neighbour. The hermeneutics of integrity requires that it is linked to the love of God, and this has actually been done through description of humility before God (1:9–10a), by evoking faith in him that should manifest itself through the appropriate attitude towards other people (2:1), and finally by mentioning it directly (2:5). The commandment to love one’s neighbour has been quoted in extenso in the wording identical to Lev 19:18 in the LXX, and keeping the commandment – if it “really” μέντοι takes place – is praised with a formal phrase καλῶς ποιεῖτε “you do well”, very likely an equivalent of a blessing (Lev 26–27, Deut 28).328 Indicativus praes. suggests that this should be done continuously. The fulfilment of the Law itself is indicated here with the verb τελέω (also used in the ind. praes. form and expressing the same idea of continuity that the verb ποιέω suggested), which is hardly ever used in such a context in the NT (cf. Luke 2:39, Rom 2:27).329 By applying the same verb, the narrator very likely refers to earlier meanings and associations evoked by the lexeme, namely, to the completeness/integrity and perfection (cf. James 1:2–4), manifested through total obedience to God’s will expressed in the Law. The Law is described here as “royal” – νόμος βασιλικός. The adjective βασιλικός can indeed be translated in this way but it can also be seen as the equivalent of a superlative – ‘the highest’/‘the best Law’ whose summary could be the commandment of love.330 Nevertheless, if we want to preserve the basic, primary meaning of the adjective βασιλικός, we have to apply it to the king. It is not difficult to guess that the king here will denote God. Such understanding is confirmed by Philo of Alexandria who, commenting on the text of Num 20:17, ὁδὸς βασιλική explains “the king’s highway” as the road belonging to God and leading to him (De Posteritate Caini 101–102).331 The Law that comes from God, belongs to God and leads to God has the same properties so it can be called “the royal law”. The expression could thus serve as the equivalent of ‘God’s Law’/‘Divine Law’ which must be obeyed as a whole (the principle of integrity), and the integrity does not consist in casuistry but in fulfilling the commandment of love that summarises the whole Law. A similar idea can be found in the teaching of Jesus (Matt 22:37–40). It may be assumed that in the light of faith “in our Lord Jesus Christ” (James 2:1) and references to the promise of the inheritance of “the kingdom”, proclaimed by Jesus (James 2:5), the Old Testament associations are combined here with Christological elements: Jesus, as the descendent of David, deserves the title of ‘the king’ (Matt 27:28–29, Mark 11:9–10, 15:17–18, Luke 19:27–38, 23:37–38). Consequently, “the royal Law” 328 329 330 331

S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 209. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 255. Ibid., p. 256. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 109.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

in James 2:8 is ‘God’s Law’/‘Divine Law’ interpreted, as Jesus did it, in the spirit of the commandment of love (Matt 22:37–40, Mark 12:28–32, Luke 10:25–28).332 The fact of quoting the commandment of love from Lev 19:18b in the centre of the whole reflection very well summarises the earlier allusions to this book – Lev 19:15–18a, where the principle of impartiality was strongly emphasised along with the prohibition of slander, hatred, exacting vengeance or bearing grudge against anybody. Still, the allusions may be based not only on Lev 19:15–18, but also on intertestamental literature that includes similar catalogues of commands and interdictions, and references to the commandment of love. For instance, in The Testament of Simeon we can read: “Then also, my beloved children, love each one his brother with a good heart, and remove from you the spirit of envy” (TSim 4:7); similarly, The Testament of Issachar teaches: “Keep therefore the law of God, my children, and get simplicity, and walk in guilelessness, not prying over-curiously into the commands of God and the business of your neighbour; but love the Lord and your neighbour, have compassion on the poor and weak” (TIss 5:1–2), and The Testament of Dan says “Observe, therefore, my children, the commandments of the Lord, and keep His law; and depart from wrath, and hate lying […]. Speak truth each one with his neighbour […]; but you shall be in peace, having the God of peace […]. Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart” (TDan 5:1–4).333 In v. 9 the narrator comes back to negative examples, employing, as in v. 8, a conditional sentence (modus realis/universalis). In lexical terms, he refers back to 2:1 where the noun προσωπολημψία is used – now the same idea is expressed with the verb προσωπολημπτεῖτέω in ind. praes. act. – προσωπολημπτεῖτε (hapax legomenon) in the protasis. The apodosis comprises two warnings – one pertaining to the present (ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε “you commit sin”), and the second one referring to the future (ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ὡς παραβάται “[you are/will be] convicted by the law as transgressors”). The use of passive voice in the second warning suggests the synonymity or equivalence of being convicted by the Law and being convicted by God (metonymy). Even though the auxiliary verb is not explicit here, its reconstruction is easy – it can be used both in the present tense and in the future tense. In both cases the utterance is eschatologically oriented. The noun παραβάτης “transgressor”, in turn, adds a juridical character to the sentence, which facilitates the translation of the verb ἐλέγχω as ‘to condemn’/‘to convict’, although the word may also have a less restrictive meaning – ‘to reprimand’/‘to point out the fault’ (Matt 18:15).

332 Cf. M.D. Fiorello, The Ethical Implication, p. 570. 333 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 207, fn. 136.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

247

248

The Structural Commentary

In James 4:4–6, which serves as a transitional phrase, the message is reinforced. So far, the narrator has been addressing his recipients as “brothers”; now he calls them μοιχαλίδες “adulterers”, and the gender is feminine. It must be surprising to the recipients and certainly draws their attention to the content that follows. Basically, the term μοιχαλίδες pertains to women (voc. pl.) but here its meaning is inclusive, which very well corresponds with the main idea of the whole passage concerning impartial wisdom. The association with female unfaithfulness is not coincidental here. Its aim is to evoke the allegory of marriage, characteristic of prophetic teaching, in which Israel is the unfaithful wife and God is the loyal husband (Isa 54:5–6, 57:3, Jer 3:20, Ezek 16:38, 23:45, Hos 2:4–7). In James, adulterers are those who have not been faithful to the Law, as 2:9 suggests, and are engaged in “the friendship/love with the world” ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου. An interesting suggestion has been made by Luke Timothy Johnson who, apart from OT connotations, notices here also references to Hellenistic culture in which “friendship” meant both spiritual and physical union.334 Thus, “friendship with the world” could mean the betrayal of Jewish ideals and engagement in Hellenistic culture. Still, what seems to be more probable in the light of egalitarianism and dialectics characteristic of James’ teaching about impartial wisdom is the combination of different connotations that make it possible to refer to one or the other culture without the need to evaluate them. The abrupt, incriminating apostrophe is followed by a rhetorical question: οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν; (Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?) The same idea is repeated in the conditional sentence. The harshness and authoritative character of both accusations is underlined by the noun ἔχθρα – ‘enmity’/‘hatred’ and by the adjective ἔχθρός derived from the same root. In this way, the narrator gradually strengthens negative feelings towards God – from infidelity to hatred – and points out the fact that God does not tolerate rivals, that he requires exclusiveness,335 which is emphasised even more strongly in the conditional sentence: ὃς ἐὰν οὖν βουληθῇ φίλος εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου, ἐχθρὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ καθίσταται (therefore, whoever [of you] wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God). The explanation of what the accusations in v. 4 actually mean is supposed to be brought by v. 5 which, however – as Douglas J. Moo claims – can be counted among the most difficult and the least explicit fragments of the NT.336 The ambiguity of this verse cannot be narrowed down to narrative strategies because it is also revealed on the syntactic level. Moreover, it is impossible to point to any particular Old Testament text the narrator refers to; it is also not clear how we should understand

334 L.T. Johnson, The Letter of James, p. 279. 335 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 413. 336 Ibid, p. 415; C.B. Carpenter, James 4,5 Reconsidered, NTS 46 (2000), p. 189.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

the terms that are crucial for the interpretation of the verse πνεῦμα ‘spirit’, ἐπιποθέω ‘to yearn’/‘to long for something’ or φθόνος ‘jealousy’/‘envy’.337

There are several variants of the interpretation of James 4:5. Three most popular possibilities are as follows: 1. The verse refers to God’s jealousy of the human spirit – God does not want it to become friends with the world; 2. The verse refers to human jealousy; 3. James 4:5 consists of two rhetorical questions that are expected to be answered negatively: “Do you suppose that it is for nothing what the scripture says?” “Does the spirit that he has made to dwell in us yearn jealously?” In the last case, we have to abandon the traditional division and punctuation.338 If we assume that James 4:5 alludes to God’s jealousy of his people, then we can also make the assumption that the narrator refers in this way to the marital allegories implied earlier and 5b may be translated as: “God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”. But the narrator, writing about jealousy, might also mean human jealousy and envy, and then the phrase πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡμῖν should be understood as “the spirit that has planted jealousy in us”. The problem is that it is not clear what spirit is meant here; whether this is the spirit that God breathed into man in the act of creation or maybe the Holy Spirit given to man in the act of salvation?339 It is, however, quite unlikely that the remark concerns the Holy Spirit because he is not otherwise mentioned anywhere in James. Thus, the narrator probably means human spirit received by man at the moment of creation (Gen 2:7).340 There are sometimes suggestions that πνεῦμα should be understood as the equivalent of the Hebrew word ‫ ֵיֶצר‬denoting ‘disposition’, usually bad/wicked (cf. Gen 6:5). There ‘dwells’ in man both good disposition – described as ‘the spirit of truth’ in intertestamental literature (particularly in Qumran Texas but not only)341 that James often refers to, and bad disposition – called ‘the spirit of error’. Man succumbs either to one or to the other.342 The above doubts are accompanied by grammatical difficulties since it is impossible to determine which of the nominal parts of speech in neutrum is used as nominativus (and functions as the subject of the sentence), and which one is an accusativus (and has the function of the direct object). If the spirit is the subject

337 338 339 340

C.B. Carpenter, James 4,5, p. 190. Ibid. Ibid. Such understanding of a similar phrase can be found in The Shepherd of Hermas: “Love truth, and let nothing but truth proceed out of thy mouth, that the Spirit which God made to dwell in this flesh, may be found true in the sight of all men” (28:1), http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ text/shepherd-lightfoot.html [accessed: 06.10.2019]; see also S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 339. 341 B. Lappenga, James 3:13–4:10 and the Language of Envy in Proverbs 3, JBL 136 (2017), no. 4, p. 1001. 342 J.T. Johnson, The Letter of James, p. 281; P.H. Davids, James, p. 163.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

249

250

The Structural Commentary

of the sentence, the translation should be as follows: “for envy longs the spirit that [God] has planted in us”.343 However, if the spirit is the object, then the phrase should be translated as: “[God] longs enviously for the spirit he has planted in us”. Most commentators advocate the second option, choosing God as the subject of the verb ἐπιποθεῖ, so it is God who enviously longs for the spirit that he has breathed into man. As has been mentioned, such jealousy corresponds with the image of God as a jealous husband in v. 4. What remains questionable, however, is the meaning of the noun φθόνος which had very negative connotations in the Hellenistic world and was never used in relation to God but referred to pejoratively evaluated human feelings or behaviour, like e.g. in Wis 2:24 (denoting envy rather than jealousy – cf. James 3:23, 4:3 as well as Matt 27:18, Mark 15:10). Thus, if it is human envy that is meant here, God cannot be the subject of the sentence and, accepting this assumption, we have to come back to the variant that proposes “the spirit” as the subject of the predicate ἐπιποθει.344 Ἐπιποθει, as has been said, means ‘to miss someone or something’ or ‘to long/ yearn for/to lust for something’. The second meaning very well matches the phrase πρὸς φθόνον, depicting the vehemence and intensity of feelings: ‘to lust for something jealously’. But then, due to the fact that negative assessment of jealousy is multiplied in the description, it does not seem appropriate to apply it to God. All the more that in the LXX, ἐπιποθέω is used in reference to God only once – in Jer 13:14.345 The verb much more often describes human longing or desires, as e.g. in Ps 42[41]:2346 and has positive connotations. Sometimes, instead of the basic meanings of the verb ἐπιποθέω, in the translation of James 4:5, other options of the meaning are considered, like ‘to head/move/ advance toward jealousy’, and it is then the (human) spirit that becomes the subject of the sentence: “toward jealousy heads the spirit that [God] has planted in us”. But such translation does not work when God is treated as the subject. If James 4:5 is supposed to be the only case when God is the subject of ἐπιποθεῖ, then we should rather come back to the basic meanings of the verb: ‘to miss’ and ‘to long/lust for something’. Then the phrase πρὸς φθόνον must be seen as the equivalent of the adverb φθονερῶς – “jealously”; it loses its dynamism and the whole sentence has to be considered in the context of prophetic imagery: “God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”. As Douglas J. Moo rightly observes, the recipients can choose here between two different options and there are arguments

343 344 345 346

S. Laws, Commentary, p. 177. Ibid. Ibid. C.B. Carpenter, James 4,5, p. 194 draws our attention to lexical similarity of Ps 42[41]:2 and James 4:5, which also encompasses the preposition πρός, as well as to the semantic similarity, because the term ψυχή used in the psalm, may be the equivalent of the term πνεῦμα, used in James.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

supporting one or the other possibility. Grammar suggests that jealousy is the expression of God’s feelings while the fact that neither the noun φθόνος nor the verb ἐπιποθέω are normally used in reference to God in biblical literature are arguments in support of human jealousy. Nevertheless, it is possible that the narrator of James uses the term φθόνος as the synonym of the word ζῆλος which has appeared in James 3:14.16 and 4:2 in the description of human jealousy. Now, to differentiate human jealousy from the divine jealousy,347 he uses a synonymous term.348 The fact that they were used interchangeably is confirmed, inter alia, by 1 Macc 8:15, TSim 4:5 or TGad 7:2. Moreover, φθόνος was employed to describe emotions of Olympian gods349 and, as has been shown, the narrator treats both the Jewish and the Greek tradition equally so he could very well reach for Hellenistic phraseology and transfer it to a sapiential text. The OT context and the marital metaphor or allegory also advocate attributing the jealous longing and yearning to God (and the OT quite often mentions the jealousy of God – Exod 20:5, 34:14, Num 25:11, Deut 4:24, Zech 1:14, 8:2): when the recipients of James do not obey the Law and judge others by appearance, they resemble an adulterous wife who is emotionally involved in the love affair with the world and its false values, thus betraying her spouse-God and showing hostility towards him. Meanwhile, the husband, who demands exclusivity in feelings, “jealously” (requiring full commitment) “longs/ yearns” (because he loves) “for the spirit that he has made to dwell” in man. This translation also solves the question of the interpretation of the word πνεῦμα – it refers to spiritual, inner commitment encompassing human emotions and will, so the meaning here is broader than that of the word ψυχή. It would certainly be easier to determine the meaning of James 4:5b if we could identify the text the quotation has been derived from. The narrator mentions the Scripture but it is difficult to point out the exact source of the quote. Some commentators abandon the search and treat James 4:5a and James 4:5b as parallel rhetorical questions that require negative answers. Such a solution along with accepting the noun πνεῦμα as the subject of the second sentence is proposed, i.a., by Sophie Laws350 and Luke Timothy Johnson:351 “Do you think that the Scripture speaks to no effect?” [No] “Does the spirit that he has made to dwell in us yearn jealously?” [No]. Nevertheless, as Peter Davids notes, it is difficult to support this solution mainly because, if those are negative answers to the rhetorical questions which are expected, the negative particle μή, should appear already in the questions

347 The difference is that human jealousy is destructive and God’s jealousy aims at reminding people about his love and accentuating his grace; cf. Ps 103[102]:8–9. 348 C.B. Carpenter, James 4,5, p. 195. 349 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 420; B. Lappenga, James 3:13–4:10, p. 991–992, 1003–1004. 350 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 178. 351 L.T. Johnson, The Letter of James, p. 280.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

251

252

The Structural Commentary

themselves, and it is missing.352 Scot McKnight, who also accepts “the spirit” as the subject of 4:5b, combines 4:5b and 4:6 in a climactic parallelism consisting of two opposites, characteristic of Semitic style: A. – v. 5b: “Humans [human spirit] yearn toward envy” B. – v. 6a: “[God] gives all the more grace”. A’. – v. 6b1: “God opposes the proud”, B’. – v. 6b2: “[God] gives grace to the humble”.353 Now and again, one can hear suggestions that the difficulties in identifying the source text of the quotation result from the fact that it was derived from some unknown translation of the OT or from a (lost) apocrypha354 which, in the precanonical times, was treated in the same way as the Scripture. There is, however, no sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis. A solution may be found when we consider the word Scripture collectively. The phrase ἡ γραφὴ λέγει “the Scripture says” – would then be a reference not to one, but to many different texts which include a motif corresponding to the image of God’s jealous longing for the unfaithful man. The narrator acts in a similar way recalling the story of Abraham (James 2:21.23), when, in the narrative about the offering of Isaac (Gen 22:1–12), he quotes an extract from the story concerning the promise of numerous descendants (Gen 15:6) and calls Abraham a friend of God, even though the term appears in other texts depicting the patriarch.355 As has already been mentioned, in the Old Testament there are numerous references to the jealousy of God. And even though the lexis and phraseology are quite different from what we can read in James 4:5, the similarity of motifs is apparent here.356 The following verse (v. 6) stands in opposition to the dynamic and passionate description of jealousy or yearning. Now the narrator accentuates grace that overgrows the divine jealousy. The image is accompanied by a quote357 introduced with an elliptical phrase διὸ λέγει “therefore it [the Scripture] says” and this time easy to identify, since it is derived from Prov 3:34: ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται,

352 353 354 355 356

P.H. Davids, James, p. 147; C.B. Carpenter, James 4,5, p. 197. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 341. P.H. Davids, James, p. 163–164; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 421. See above – chap. 2.7. S. Laws is the supporter of a similar view, but for her the leitmotif is not the image of jealous God but the longing of human soul/spirit; consequently, she shows i.a. Ps 42[41]:2, 83[82]:3 and 118[117]:20 as source texts, where the same verb as in James 4:5 appears – ἐπιποωεῖ, see: S. Laws, Commentary, p. 178–179. 357 Cf. C.D. Carpenter, James 4,5, p. 199–204.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble”. The motif of God’s objection to arrogance and pride is obviously much more frequently used (e.g. Ps 18[17]:28, 34[33]:18–19, 51[50]:19, 72[71]:4, 138[137]:6, Isa 61:1, Zeph 3:11–12). In James 4:6 our attention is drawn to epiphora – a homoioteleutic ending of both sentences that make up the verse: δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν, which undoubtedly builds up the rhythm of the text and might be the indication of the necessity to look at these clauses as parallels, in the way Scot McKnight does it. Lexical (the use of the term ταπεινοί) and semantic (resorting to inversion) references to deliberations from 1:9–10a and 2:1–7.9 can also be noticed. Those whom God opposes are described as ὑπερήφανοι ‘arrogant’/‘supercilious’/ ‘conceited’/‘proud’ – in other words those who have an excessively high opinion of themselves, which results in showing disdain towards others, including God (Ps 17[16]:10, 31[30]:19, 119[118]:51.69.78, Sir 23:8, 27:15.28, 32:12), as well as in inflicting violence upon other people (Ps 10:2[9:23], Sir 27:15, 31:26).358 Thus, they may be identified with those who have been described in 2:2–4 and 2:6. In the fragments just quoted, the narrator focuses on depicting violence and contempt for people. In the subsequent deliberations, he is going to explore the theme of a disdainful attitude to God (4:13–14, 5:1–3). The transition of 4:4–6 is followed by parables illustrating arrogance towards God, insolence which stems from pride and from spinning one’s hopes in wealth, and showing impermanence and transitory nature of riches – in this way the narrator returns to the themes discussed in 1:10b–11. He starts his description with the phrase Ἄγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες “come now, you who say”, followed by a statement in direct speech. However, this is not a straightforward call addressed to the extratextual recipients of the letter but rather a formula introducing an image or a parable, reflecting the style of a diatribe359 (the narrator will use the same method to introduce another parable or illustration in 5:1, and it will be preceded by the same expression). Thus, the implied author creates here a new level of narration – a story whose protagonists are rich merchants. The implied recipients of the letter and, all the more, the real recipients do not have to be identified with them but, as the listeners of the parable, they should relate to the characters of the narrative and apply its message to their own lives. As has been mentioned in the analysis of 1:9–11, the narrator does not condemn wealth as such but he bitterly criticises treating it as the greatest priority. In the context of the transition 4:4–6, such behaviour may be seen as betrayal and hostility towards God, or as flirting or being enamoured with the world, the result being that the riches replace God and become the only aim of life. In this manner, after exposing the second commandment of love in 2:8–9,

358 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 343. 359 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 446.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

253

254

The Structural Commentary

the narrator comes back to the first commandment, as he has announced it in the transition. It has already been mentioned that the narrative about tradesmen is a fictitious story360 – this is the reason why no details are provided which would, for example, help to identify the town the merchants are supposed to travel to and spend a year in “doing business and making money”. It is very likely that what has been exploited here is the element of distrust surrounding tradesmen who were generally considered to be dishonest (Prov 20:23, Mic 6:11, Amos 8:4–6).361 Now the suggested dishonesty is combined by the narrator with the merchants’ attempts to assume God’s competences and take control over time (that is why words related to time appear here – σήμερον ἢ αὔριον, ἐνιαυτός “today or tomorrow”, “a year”), location (we can find here a reference to a place – τήνδε τὴν πόλις “such and such a town”) and goals, objectives (ποιήσομεν καὶ ἐμπορευσόμεθα καὶ κερδήσομεν – “doing business and making money”).362 Hence, tradesmen impersonate those who are planning their lives without God and expect to obtain benefits that may help them gain the respect and appreciation of others. This leads to arrogance, insolence and pride in one’s own achievements – here the financial ones – as well as to the need to show off in front of other people and to the expectation to be treated in a particular, privileged way. In the context of deliberations concerning impartial wisdom, such conduct is its contradiction and it is characteristic of someone who is devoid of the gift of wisdom, which is very pointedly shown in the following verse. V. 14 repeats the ideas concerning fleetingness from 1:10b–11. It starts with the pronoun οἵτινες which can be translated as ‘such’ or it may be combined with a comparative element ‘such [as you]’. The pronoun underlines the fictitious nature of the previous narrative (it helps to treat it as the comparans of a simile) and shows to the implied and real recipients that the parable actually refers to them and not to the tradesmen – the characters in the story. So the recipients are those who do not know “what tomorrow will bring”. The verb ἐπίσταμαι denotes irrefutable, unassailable knowledge (cf. episteme), which in fact is not accessible to men. Lack of such knowledge excludes the possibility of planning the future, even when it is as close at hand as “tomorrow” αὔριον; hence, making such attempts despite the lack of knowledge must lead to a disaster. The conduct of the protagonists of the parable – “the friends of the world” who brim with confidence in themselves and only trust in their own abilities – stands in stark contrast to the demeanour of Abraham, “the friend of God” (James 2:21–23), described earlier in a different context, and to the earlier sapiential tradition (Prov 27:1, cf. Matt 6:34). 360 Ibid., p. 446. 361 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 189. 362 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 370, distinguishes four such domains: time (“today or tomorrow”), space (“such and such a town”), the duration of the activity (“a year”) and benefits (“making money”).

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

It is not clear if the remaining part of verse 14 is an independent rhetorical question – “what is your life?” or if it refers to the subject of knowledge – “you do not even know what tomorrow will bring [or] what your life is”. A clear-cut division is hindered by the pronoun ποία that follows the adverb αὔριον (tomorrow). The pronoun may refer either to the first or to the second part of the utterance, like in the case of the ‘enharmonic’ phrase ἐν πραΰτητι in James 1:21, which matches both 21a and 21b. Finding the solution is even more complicated due to the fact that the first sentence of James 4:14 (οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ τῆς) has an elliptical character – it does not give us a clue what kind of knowledge is actually meant, although the article τῆς is used here. Regardless of the translation and interpretation, the answer to the second question (ποία ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν) is very meaningful and takes us back to the motif of the fleetingness of life mentioned earlier. As in 1:10b–11, the narrator also here draws an image derived from the world of nature – ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινομένη, ἔπειτα καὶ ἀφανιζομένη “you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes”. The noun ἀτμίς hardly ever appears in biblical literature (Gen 19:28, Hos 13:3, Acts 2:19) and it is translated in different ways – as ‘smoke’/‘fog’/‘mist’. But the idea expressed by means of this image is clear – life is ephemeral and transitory, it lasts only for a while and then vanishes. The illustration undoubtedly draws upon sapiential literature, e.g. Wis 2:4–5, 5:13, Job 7:7.9.16 (cf. also Ps 39[38]:5–6, Luke 12:15.20). The parable ends with a transition containing advice on what ought to be said (or, more precisely, what attitude to adopt), seemingly addressed to the protagonists of the parable, the merchants, but actually aimed at all recipients (4:15). It is expressed by means of a conditional sentence: ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ, καὶ ζήσομεν καὶ ποιήσομεν τοῦτο ἢ ἐκεῖνο “if the Lord wishes,363 we will live,364 and do this or that”. Such an expression of total dependence on God is often called in theological literature conditio Jacobaea.365 It illustrates even more clearly what the term ταπεινός, used at the beginning of the reflection concerning impartial wisdom (James 1:9), actually means: “humble/meek/submissive and entirely dependent on God’s will” (cf. Matt 6:10, 26:42, Acts 18:21, 21:14, Rom 1:10, 15:32, 1 Pet 3:17). Conditio Jacobaea does not only complement v. 14 but also James 1:10b–11. For it is not enough to acknowledge the fact that human life is ephemeral and transient; one should also remember that it is in God’s hands. It is very likely that conditio Jacobaea was inspired by a formula known in the Hellenistic world – Lat. Deo volente, which

363 In some manuscripts (1175), the coniunctivus is replaced here by ind. fut. Act. θελησεί, in others (B P 33vid 81. 642. 1611. 1735. 1852. 2344) by ind. praes. act. θελη). 364 In some manuscripts (Ψ 33.81. 307. 436. 442. 1175. 1448. 1611. 1735. 1739. 1852. 2344. 2492 Byz samss ) also the verb ζάω is used in coniunctivus ζησωμεν, which changes the conditional sentence into: “If the Lord wanted and if we lived, then we would/will do this or that”. 365 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 451.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

255

256

The Structural Commentary

referred to the will of god/gods and may have had a magical character366 (like knocking on wood),367 but the narrator has changed here the term god into the title κύριος “the Lord”, so that it acquired a Jewish and/or Christian character. It certainly cannot be clearly stated if the title κύριος pertains to God (the Father) or to Jesus Christ. The narrator resorts again to his favourite method of ambiguity. Still, by introducing changes to a well-known saying, the implied author once again combines the principles of the heathen world with Jewish and Christian ideas.368 The meditation upon impartial wisdom is concluded with another parable – James 5:1–3, related to both James 1:9–11, 2:5 and to 4:13–15. In the first case, it is the correspondence in terms of motifs; in the second, there is also a similarity of form – the phrase addressed at rich people which opens 5:1 is the same as the one in 4:13: Ἄγε νῦν introducing a diatribe. Thus, the narrative levels and reception levels are also similar: on the intratextual level, those are the characters – the rich men; on higher levels, those are the implied readers as well as real, particular recipients, regardless of the time of the reception of the text. Contrary to 1:9, where the rich could also happen to be humble, here the term πλούσιοι refers to those who really are the opposite of the meek and the submissive. James 4:4–6 and 13–15 suggest that they are the opponents of God.369 In the context of the reflection upon wisdom, they can be identified as those who are devoid of the gift of wisdom coming from above (although they undoubtedly possess earthly, sensual or demonic wisdom – cf. James 3:15).370 Their activities are presented in an ironic or mocking manner to show that earthly wisdom (lack of wisdom coming from above), when it is seen from God’s perspective, through the prism of eschatology, is in fact utter folly (see, above all, James 5:3). The parable also refers à rebours to James 2:5, where the election of the humiliated and the humble πτωχοί was highlighted; now, the judgement and condemnation of the proud πλούσιοι will be emphasised. The parable, in terms of form and content, resembles a prophetic utterance of eschatological or even apocalyptic nature (e.g. Amos 4:1–3, Isa 3:11–24, Jer 20:1–6, Mic 3:1–4).371 It resembles in particular the judgements in 1 En: “Woe to you, ye rich, for ye have trusted in your riches, And from your riches shall ye depart, Because ye have not remembered the Most High in the days of your riches. Ye have committed blasphemy and unrighteousness, And have become ready for the day

366 367 368 369 370 371

S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 375, fn. 46. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 192. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 452. Cf. M. Jackson-McCabe, Messiah, p. 707. R. Crotty, Identyfying the Poor, p. 17. S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 381, 383.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

of slaughter, And the day of darkness and the day of the great judgement” (94:8–9);372 “Woe to you who acquire silver and gold in unrighteousness and say: ‘We have become rich with riches and have possessions […]. And now let us do what we purposed: For we have gathered silver, And many are the husbandmen in our houses’. And our granaries are (brim) full as with water […]; For your riches shall not abide but speedily ascend from you […] And ye shall be given over to a great curse” (97:8–10).373

The parable picks up the motif of the passage of time, initiated earlier, develops it and concludes it with a reference to the future judgement, which makes the warning sound more ominous than before. What draws the reader’s attention in v. 1 are two onomatopoeic, synonymous verbs: κλαίω ‘to weep’ – in imp. aor. act. which suggests the completeness of an activity and ὀλολύζω ‘to wail’/‘to lament’ (a NT hapax legomenon) – in part. praes. act. The second verb quite often appears in prophetic speeches in the LXX and describes the reaction to a misfortune, defeat or disaster, which in most cases are a form of punishment, as well as to the coming of ‘the Day of the Lord’ (Isa 13:6, 14:31, 15:2–3, 16:7, 23:1.6.14, 65:14, Jer 48[31]:20.31, Ezek 21:17, Amos 8:3, Zech 11:2).374 In classical Greek, however, it can also appear in the context of prayer or even thanksgiving.375 The prophetic background immediately suggests that the narrator does not mean here common everyday earthly problems and misfortunes but suffering and calamities which are the result of an eschatological judgement or punishment, what is additionally confirmed by the use of the part. praes. ἐπερχόμεναι “[that are] coming”. The misfortunes and suffering are expressed with the noun ταλαιπωρία in plural. The term signifies first of all ‘misery’/‘wretchedness’/‘distress’ (like in Rom 3:16), and the plural underlines the intensity and multiplication of what is happening (cf. Joel 1:10). In the previous descriptions of the ephemeral nature of riches, the narrator referred to the world of nature – vegetation of plants or atmospheric phenomena. Now he abandons metaphors and expresses his meaning in a much more direct manner, enumerating the ways in which ‘wealth’/‘riches’ πλοῦτος, ‘clothes’ ἱμάτια (v. 2.), “gold and silver” χρυσὸς καὶ ἄργυρος, and even ‘flesh’ σάρξ (v. 3) are going to be destroyed. He uses short sentences linked with the conjunction καὶ. It seems that the term πλοῦτος used at the beginning of this recital, as the most general one, is the hypernym of the remaining words, although the verb σήπω ‘to rot’ might suggest the need to narrow down “the riches” only to things that can rot. The verb σήπω 372 Book of Enoch, transl. R.H. Charles, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html [accessed: 22.10.2019]. 373 Ibid. 374 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 465. 375 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 197.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

257

258

The Structural Commentary

may be counted among James’ hapax legomena – it cannot be found anywhere else in the NT, while in the LXX it denotes destruction and often appears in the context of impermanence (e.g. Sir 14:19, Job 16:7, Ps 38[37]:6, Ezek 17:9). The combination of rotting and eating clothes by moths can also be found in the teaching of Jesus – Matt 6:16, but the image is much older – cf. Job 13:28. Here, we can additionally notice the ironic reference to the earlier description of glittering, attractive clothes in 2:2–3. The enumeration is continued in v. 3. In the description of gold and silver, the implied author uses the verb κατιόω which means ‘to rust’, even though precious metals obviously do not get covered with rust. He has probably made use of hyperbolisation here, like in the examples – the parables in 2:2–4, in order to illustrate the general idea of decay but also the evanescence of something that seems to be very sustainable and indestructible (cf. Bar 6:23, Ezek 24:6.11.12). We can detect here inspiration coming from sapiential literature where gold and silver also rust away (Sir 29:10, Bar 6:23); moreover, the images bring to mind Babylonian idols made of precious metals. In this manner the narrator points out that putting trust in wealth does not actually differ from idolatry.376 One more image draws our attention here, that is “flesh [eaten by the rust] like fire”. Again, hyperbolisation is used, an image which does not reflect reality – human body, in the same way as precious metals, cannot be subject to corrosion. However, the objective here is to emphasise the comparative element (comparans) – “like fire”. Both the image itself and the lexis hark back to James 3:5–6.8 where destructive “fire” – πῦρ and ‘rust’/‘poison’/‘venom’ – ἰός appear. The image of fire is certainly quite typical of prophetic teaching about God’s anger, judgement and punishment (Isa 30:27.30, Jer 5:14, Ezek 15:7, Amos 1:12.14 cf. Mark 9:47–48, Matt 13:42, 1 En 54:1–6).377 But it may also refer to 4:14 and the noun ἀτμίς which – as has been mentioned – means also ‘smoke’. This would be a perfect complement of the warning relating not only to the transitory nature of life but also to judgement and punishment, as a result of which nothing more will be left of the arrogant rich men but the smoke (like e.g. in the case of the condemned and punished Sodom – cf. Gen 19:28). In the description of material goods which sooner or later will ultimately be destroyed, verbs in the ind. perf. have been used – σέσηπεν ‘to decay’, γέγονεν ‘to become’ and κατίωται ‘to rust’, what on the one hand corresponds with the prophetic style (perfectum propheticum)378 and on the other hand suggests that the process of destruction started in the past, most probably at the moment when men begun to accumulate wealth and take pride in it. For the addressees who

376 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 387. 377 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 199. 378 Ibid., p. 386; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 741.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is impartial (James 1:9–11, 2:1–9, 4:4–6.13–15, 5:1–3)

represent higher reception levels then the protagonists of the parable (the implied readers as well as the first historical and subsequent real recipients), this is a warning and an attempt to prevent them from excessive accumulation and love of riches which start to rot the moment they are collected. On the basis of prophetic and sapiential literature and the Book of Enoch quoted above, we can guess why the narrator considers wealth to be something evil that engages the whole man: it is because wealth may be a serious obstacle on the way of obeying the Law; it is the cause of functional idolatry and it decreases our sensitivity to the needs of other people. A similar warning and advice can be found in Luke 12:33 where similar imagery is employed.379 However, as has been said earlier, the objective of the narrator is not a condemnation of wealthy people in general, but a warning of judgement, addressed to those who attach too much importance to riches or social position and are proud of them. In this way they push God to the background, do not trust him but place trust in their wealth instead. Such demeanour is often accompanied by looking at others through the prism of their wealth and position and by a tendency to exalt those who are similar, at the same time ignoring and discrediting the humble and the meek who openly express their dependence on God. The parable of James ends with an ironic statement: ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις “you have laid up treasure for the last days”. The verb θησαυρίζω, used in the ind. aor. act., means accumulating riches and usually expresses a neutral or positive attitude. The positive stance is lost, though, when the verb is combined with the expression “last days” on the one hand and the image of destruction on the other hand. The phrase “the last days” also belongs to prophetic repertoire – in the OT it signifies the day of judgement and punishment. In James 5:3, our attention is drawn, however, to its use in combination with the preposition ἐν – “in the last days” and with the aorist. This suggests that “the last days” are not just the question of unspecified future but they are part of present reality,380 and the judgement has already started at the moment of collecting treasures and violation of the double commandment of love, by putting trust in riches and not in God, and by demonstrating one’s own importance, at the same time holding others in contempt. In this manner the narrator sums up all themes appearing in the reflection devoted to impartial wisdom. Now, the impartiality has been even more clearly highlighted by the reference to the demeanour of God who, contrary to man, does not take anybody’s social or financial status into account. The above deliberations show that impartial wisdom is very closely linked to wisdom that comes from above mainly due to the reference to God’s impartial

379 A.J. Batten, Rotting Riches, p. 42. 380 P.H. Davids, James, p. 177.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

259

260

The Structural Commentary

judgement (and, consequently, to imitating the behaviour of God). The narrator’s reflection is twofold. On the one hand, he criticises judging people by appearance (or appearances), showing the absurdity of such judgement (2:2–4). On the other hand, he warns his audience against seeking plaudits and against respect based on riches (2:1.6.9), because it means “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (4:4). The remark concerning “friendship with the world” includes an obvious suggestion of unfaithfulness and violation of the first commandment of love (2:5.7.9, 4:4–6.13–15). Moreover, the wealth, applause and respect of the world pass away (1:10b–11, 5:2–3) and do not guarantee protection from judgement (5:1.3), so relying on them is synonymous with lack of the gift of wisdom. Wisdom is manifested in adopting an appropriate attitude to God and to other people. Such conduct is typical of those who have been described as ταπεινοί and πτωχοί: this is humility, meekness, lack of interest in riches as well as impartiality resulting from all of these virtues. The conduct characteristic of those endowed with impartial wisdom and those devoid of the gift is presented in the chart below: Endowed with the gift of wisdom

Devoid of the gift of wisdom

– truly worshipping Christ – James 2:1; – humble – James 1:9–10a; 2:5; – not pinning their hopes on material goods; – putting their trust and hope on God – James 4:15; – not judging by appearance;

– worshipping Christ in a false way; – arrogant; – pinning their hopes on their own activities – James 4:13–14; – putting their trust and hope on riches – James 1:10b–11, 5:1–3; – judging by appearance – James 2:2–4.9a-b; – making distinctions among brothers in a community – James 2:4.9a–b; – uttering blasphemies against the name of God – James 2:7 – humiliating other people – James 2:6a;

– avoiding assessment or making distinctions; – respecting the name of God;

– respecting other people;

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

Endowed with the gift of wisdom

Devoid of the gift of wisdom

– rich in faith/faithful – James 2:5; – heirs to the kingdom – James 2:5;

– unfaithful to God – James 4:4–5 – violating the law/the commandment of love; – condemned by the law as offenders – James 2:9c; – enemies of God – James 4:4; – loving the world – James 4:4; – maleficiaries of God’s objection/anger – James 4:6.

– observing the law/keeping the commandment of love – James 2:8; – friends of God; – beneficiaries of God’s grace – James 4:6.

2.9

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

1:26

If anyone claims to be religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is worthless. 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder. 3:14 But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. 15 Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. 16 For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be chaos/disorder and wickedness of every kind. 4:11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who are you to judge your neighbour? 5:9 Brothers, do not complain/grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors! 12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “Yes” be yes and your “No” be no, so that you will not come under judgement.

Unhypocritical wisdom is described in 3:17 as ἀνυπόκριτος.381 In the NT, this word is used to characterise love (cf. Rom 12:9, 2 Cor 6:6, 1 Pet 1:22) and faith (1 Tim 1:5, 2 Tim 1:5). It is no coincidence that the narrator of James discusses lack of hypocrisy at the end of his deliberations concerning wisdom, by way of conclusion. And it is no accident that the meditation upon unhypocritical wisdom is largely

381 For rhetorical reasons, due to alliteration and rhyme, some commentators link this feature of wisdom with the previous one – ἀδιάκριος; see: S. Laws, Commentary, p. 164.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

261

262

The Structural Commentary

dominated by its negation (rhetorically accentuated in particular in James 3:14–16), so that the audience can confront James’ description with their own notions and images of wisdom and then reconstruct its positive aspects.382 As in the case of previous deliberations, we can notice here references to the story of salvation as well as the division into the past, the present and the future, characteristic of James’ reflection. This time, the author seems to be focused on eschatology, and particularly on its judgmental aspect, which underlines the sapiential and soteriological dimension of the whole reflection concerning unhypocritical wisdom. It should be noted that the juridical feature of eschatology is very deeply rooted in the present time. However, the present human judgements are both a caricature and a negation of God as the Judge, and human usurpation of the right to judge (or in fact to accuse) others is based on a false image of oneself, of others and of God. In that respect, the final considerations are related to earlier theological reflection concerning the image of God in the description of wisdom that comes from above (James 1:5–8.16–18) and pure wisdom (James 1:12–15.21a.27).

382 See below – the table summing up reflection upon unhypocritical wisdom.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

The past God as lawgiver (associations with Mount Sinai) “There is one lawgiver” – James 4:12.

The present Attitude towards commandments

The future Eschatological judgement

concerning God – vision of one’s own religiousness – James 1:26; – lack of control over one’s own tongue – James 1:26; – worthless religiousness – James 1:26; – faith in one God – James 2:19; – false notion of wisdom – James 3:15; – judging/accusing others (usurping God’s authority) – James 4:11.12; – speaking evil against the Law – James 4:11; – judging the Law – James 4:11; – taking oaths – James 5:12; – consistency and integrity – James 5:12;

“The demons believe – and shudder” – James 2:19; “There is one […] judge” – James 4:12; “The Judge is standing at the doors!” – James 5:9; Salvation and condemnation as the competency of the Judge – James 4:12, 5:9.

concerning oneself – vision of one’s own religiousness – James 1:26a; – lack of control over one’s own tongue – James 1:26b; – self-deception – James 1:26; – false notion of wisdom – James 3:15; – envy and ambition – James 3:16;

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

263

264

The Structural Commentary

The past

The present

The future

– disorder and wickedness – James 3:16; – judging/accusing others (usurping God’s authority) – James 4:11.12; – speaking evil against the Law – James 4:11; – judging the Law – James 4:11; – consistency and integrity – James 5:12 concerning other people – lack of control over one’s own tongue – James 1:26; – envy and selfish ambition – James 3:14.16; – being boastful/proud – James 3:14; – wickedness – James 3:16; – speaking evil against one another – James 4:11; – judging/accusing others – James 4:11.12; – speaking evil against the Law – James 4:11; – judging the Law –James 4:11; – grumbling against one another – James 5:9; – taking oaths – James 5:12; consistency – James 5:12. The basis for the reflection concerning unhypocritical wisdom is the commandment of love, here indicating not only the love of God and other people but also the love of oneself. As can be seen, some of the features contradicting wisdom are attributed in the table to all three aspects of the commandment of love; thus, hypocrisy pertains

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

not only to the attitude towards other people but also to the attitude to oneself (or to the vision of oneself and one’s own abilities) and the relation to God. The description of the symptoms of the last feature of wisdom enumerated by James has the shape of a concentric structure whose framework is composed of antithetical references to the commandment to love God: A. – the description of hypocritical (deficient) religiousness (1:26) and A’ – the description of consistent, integrated, unhypocritical behaviour, without the need to authenticate hypocrisy with an oath which is a transgression against the initial commandments of the Decalogue and, simultaneously, against the first commandment of love (5:19): A. 1:26 – declarative, hypocritical, unidimensional religiousness; B. 2:19 – declarative, unidimensional faith of demons; C. 3:14–16 – wisdom that does not come from God; B’. 4:11–12, 5:9 – wrong judgements; A’. 5:12 – consistency and integrity of words, works and attitudes. The framework provided here defines the course of argumentation – from negative, partial, incoherent behaviour stemming from lack of integrity between the declaration and the conduct to positive, consistent demeanour that integrates words and actions and helps to avoid judging and being judged. This comprises also the summary of all features of real wisdom, which combines inner beliefs with their external manifestation. The meditation upon unhypocritical wisdom starts with a conditional sentence Εἴ τις δοκεῖ θρησκὸς εἶναι “If any think they are religious” (or: “if anyone claims to be religious”) describing a real condition (modus realis). What draws the attention of the reader here is the verb δοκέω which means ‘to seem’/‘to claim’/‘to be held in regard’. Already in the protasis (the dependent clause) there is a suggestion that the religiousness meant here is illusory, based on a false image of one’s own piousness; hence, consequently, the vision of oneself built on its basis must be false; this idea is confirmed in the apodosis (the main clause): ούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία “his religion is worthless”. Thus, having in mind a false image of oneself, it is impossible to develop a sincere relationship with God. And when the relationship with God does not exist, any religious activities, and external practices in particular, are worthless. Apart from the verb δοκέω, another term which is crucial in this sentence is the noun θρησκεία “religiousness” and the adjective θρησκὸς “religious”. They have already been discussed in the chapter concerning pure wisdom.383 It is, however, worthwhile to mention at this point that the lexeme usually has cultic connotations

383 See above – chap. 2.2.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

265

266

The Structural Commentary

(as in 1:27) but it cannot be limited only to the cult. It seems that the narrator of James uses the term θρησκεία in 1:26 in a broader context signifying service to God and piousness. The service to God should be performed not only in the form of external practices but also in the relationship with God and in keeping the commandments encapsulated in the commandment of love. In the verse, initial for the reflection upon unhypocritical wisdom, all three aspects of the commandment of love have been highlighted but they have been shown, in a way, à rebours. Firstly – the love of God, which should bring to mind humility, fear of God, obedience and service, is described as “empty, vain and worthless religiousness”, and the use of the adjective μάταιος may even suggest idolatry (cf. Acts 14:15, Rom 1:21, Eph 4:17, 1 Pet 1:18). Secondly – the love of oneself which is always linked to being honest towards oneself, is here presented as delusion, deception of one’s own heart – ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ which, as has been noted, is closely linked to the verb δοκέω. Thirdly, the love of one’s neighbours, which is related to lack of hypocrisy towards other people, is here described as lack of control over the tongue – μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ. Such contradictive illustration of the commandment of love is simultaneously very inclusive, for in draws upon both the Semitic and the Hellenistic traditions. The very word θρησκεία may be associated with both Greek and, less frequently, Semitic cult. The heart as the synonym for personality, the fountain of feelings, will, thoughts etc. is a typical example of Semitic anthropology. The verb χαλιναγωγέω in turn (here used in the participium),384 might be a link with the Hellenistic world. James is the only New Testament writer who employs the image of bridling or keeping a tight rein on the tongue,385 which means that lack of control over the tongue may refer here not just to saying something evil against other people – although this aspect seems to be dominating in the description of unhypocritical wisdom – but also to boasting of one’s own piousness that turns out to be imaginary and deceptive.386 One of the aspects of illusory and disintegrated religiousness whose internal and external components remain in isolation is described in James 2:19. The change of the subject from the 3rd person to the 2nd person singular changes the style of the narration from parabolic (‘someone’/‘anyone’ τις may be associated with ἄνθρωπός τις) in 1:26 to apostrophic, directly addressing the recipient – as a transition, the phrase activates the attention of the addressees. When the text is approached in the traditional, linear manner, the remark concerning demons is seen as an element of a rhetorical, diatribic dialogue between two opponents. The opposition disappears 384 See above – chap. 2.7. 385 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 224. 386 Such demeanour brings to mind the parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector from Luke 18:9–14. The Pharisee deceives himself by taking pride in his uprightness, and his attitude spreads to other people, too.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

in the structural approach – the fact of highlighting the similarity between the faith of demons and the faith of those who take pride in their own religiousness develops the theme of imaginary and deceptive piousness which, as has been mentioned, may even turn into idolatry. The synonymy between the words θρησκεία and πίστις can be clearly noticed here. What is meant in both cases is narrowing faith down either to ceremonial and/or ritual utterance of religious formulas (θρησκεία) or professing that εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός “God is one” (πίστις), which undoubtedly refers to Shema and the practice of reciting it.387 In the LXX, we can read κύριος εἷς ἐστιν (Deut 6:4), so the profession accentuates the singleness of God. But it seems that in the context of unhypocritical wisdom, the narrator is more concerned with the ‘unity’ (integrity) of God so he locates the noun at the beginning of the phrase. The unity (integrity) of God (εἷς) is contrasted here in theological and rhetorical terms with the inner conflict, double-mindedness (δίψυχια) of the faith of demons that comes down to declarations.388 It is significant that in the LXX, the profession has its continuation in the first commandment of love that pertains to a personal, individual relationship with God, that is missing both in the case of imaginary, deceitful piousness/religiousness (1:26) and in the case of demons (2:19). Hence, what is meant in both examples is a disintegrated, unidimensional attitude particularly towards God. At this point, it has to be very strongly emphasised that the disengaged, unilateral religiousness and the disengaged unidimensional faith, described in 1:26 and in 2:19, which mislead the observers (illusory wisdom may also be added to the list) are not synonymous here with false faith or false piousness – the content of the faith expressed is true and correct and so are the external religious practices. What is meant here is, as has been shown, disintegrated faith and religiousness, where individual internal and external elements are isolated. What is more, the isolation may be understood as double-mindedness, lack of cohesion, which renders it virtually impossible to ask God for the gift of wisdom and to receive it (cf. James 1:5–8). Consequently, unstable and double-minded conduct – faith and religiousness – does not bring any benefits in the soteriological sense (cf. James 2:14: “What good is it […] Can faith save you?” Τί τὸ ὄφελος […] μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν). On the contrary – such faith or religiousness, and their result in the shape of the lack of wisdom, lead to inevitable judgement. Going further, the narrator depicts the reaction of demons – they shudder. This is the only place in the NT where the verb φρίσσω (‘to shudder’) can be found; in extrabiblical texts it usually refers to fear instilled by contact with a deity or a

387 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 240–241. 388 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 127.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

267

268

The Structural Commentary

supernatural power.389 It is not clear why δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν (“demons believe and shudder”). It might be explained as a fear of exorcism – such context appears in extrabiblical literature;390 the verb φρίσσουσιν may be treated as an addition without any particular significance in James’ argumentation391 or as an argumentum ad absurdum; finally, it can be seen as an ironic statement, especially when the text is read in a linear manner: the faith of people, when separated from works, is dead, while the faith of demons at least makes them shudder,392 which means that faith has to produce some kind of re(action) even if the response is only instinctive.393 The most widely known explanation is the eschatological one: demons are aware of their disintegrated faith, not combined with any kind of external commitment, so they tremble with fear of the judgement which will bring about their destruction (cf. Matt 8:29, Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34).394 People, who delude themselves believing that their incomplete and illusory faith or religiousness may bring about an eschatological or soteriological benefit – that is life, should tremble in a similar manner. The adequacy of these suggestions is confirmed by further argumentation concerning unhypocritical wisdom. Like 1:26, James 3:14 starts with a conditional sentence (although it is not very typical – in the apodosis, instead of assertion expressed by means of an indicative, there are two imperatives) and, as in 2:19, the subject changes – this time into the 2nd person plural, which helps to capture the attention of the audience. Thus, also here, the change of forms serves as a transition. The accumulation of transitive indicators is followed by a warning that sums up the previous deliberations. The narrator expresses his warning very explicitly (much more emphatically than in the abstract, parabolic 1:26) – “do not be boastful” μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε and “[do not be] false to the truth” μὴ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. The complex verb κατακαυχάομαι395 seems to be of particular importance here – it is usually translated as ‘to boast’, ‘to brag’, ‘to take pride in something’, ‘to jubilate’ and ‘to trust’.396 It has been used with the negative participle in the imp. praes. 389 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 297. 390 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 193. 391 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 297; S. McKnight calls it “a kicking blow to a wounded body” of the opponent already hurt with rhetorical sarcasm. From a rhetorical point of view it is, in McKnight’s opinion, an addition. 392 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 127–128. 393 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 242. 394 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 194; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 298. 395 The prefix κατα suggests being opposed to something (cf. Rom 11:18 and James 2:13), although the text does not provide any appropriate additional explanation. 396 Other variants of translation are described i.a. by S. Laws, Commentary, p. 160 and T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 152–153.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

med. et pass., which underscores continuity, permanence and repetitiveness of the condition described. In the context of unhypocritical wisdom, the best translation, accompanied by an elliptical addition, seems to be: “do not trust illusory/incomplete religiousness/piousness and double-minded faith (separated from works”), which render it impossible to receive wisdom that comes from God. We can notice here a reference to Jer 9:22, where similar prohibitions concerning wisdom, power and wealth can be found: μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ καὶ μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ πλούσιος ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτοῦ (Do not let the wise trust/boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty trust/boast in their might, do not let the wealthy trust/boast in their wealth). The genetivus αὐτου used three times, very clearly indicates the source of wisdom, might and wealth – they do not come from God but are human, transient, earthly categories. Further, in Jer 9:23, by means of contrast, Jeremiah enumerates values one should really trust and take pride in: those are prudence and understanding and knowing the Lord who acts with “steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things [he] delights” (κύριος ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὅτι ἐν τούτοις τὸ θέλημά μου). Jeremiah’s opposition coincides with James’ understanding of illusory wisdom described in 3:15 and reconstructed to a large extent by the recipient of unhypocritical wisdom (cf. 5:12). Similar motifs, drawing even more explicitly upon the prophetic and sapiential tradition, are developed in 1 Clem. 30:6 where false self-complacency, so much hated by God, is even more vehemently condemned: “Let our praise be in God, and not for ourselves, for God hateth the self-praisers”.397 The climactic description of illusory wisdom in 3:15 is related to previous deliberations in three ways. It starts with a general statement informing the audience that such wisdom does not come from above, so it is not God’s gift (cf. James 1:5.17). Firstly, this is earthly (ἐπίγειος) wisdom. The Greek term ἐπίγειος usually indicates the opposite of heavenly ἐπουράνιος (cf. e.g. John 3:12, 1 Cor 15:40, 2 Cor 5:1), but the context is not always negative, sometimes it is neutral. In the description of illusory wisdom, however, the word acquires a negative connotation and can be related to the kind of piousness θρησκεία from 1:26 that does not integrate earthly and heavenly elements, external practice and internal engagement. Secondly, this is sensual wisdom ψυχική. This term can also have a neutral character and becomes negative only when it is contrasted with the spiritual element πνευματικός (cf. 1 Cor 2:14, 15:44.46, Jude 19); it then indicates following human way of thinking and emotions and not adopting God’s perspective; in other words – it is non-spiritual

397 Clement of Rome, First Epistle, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html [accessed: 01.11.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

269

270

The Structural Commentary

wisdom. Reluctance to adopt the divine perspective contradicts its divine origin (although it does not contradict wisdom as such!).398 Thirdly, the wisdom is demonic δαιμονιώδης, not only is it disintegrated and contrasted with the unity of God and God’s uniting perspective, but it leads to inner conflict, double-mindedness and divisions on various levels and, consequently, to eschatological judgement and to damnation. From the general description of wisdom that does not come from God, the narrator of James smoothly proceeds to a more detailed analysis. His attention has earlier been focused on the false and hypocritical understanding of the love of God and oneself; now he concentrates on a similar understanding of the love of other people. Again, he analyses hypocrisy on two different levels: referring to interpersonal relations (James 3:16, 4:11–12, 5:9) and to their soteriological effects and aspects (James 5:12). The meditation upon interpersonal relations is introduced here with a remark concerning “bitter envy” ζῆλος πικρός in 3:14. The noun ζῆλος has a double meaning: neutral, or even positive – passion, zeal, jealousy linked to love and desire to have somebody all to oneself, and negative – jealousy, envy. In the first sense, it refers to God who speaks of himself as jealous, one who requires exclusiveness, or it might refer to dedicated, uncompromising people, committed to maintaining and/or restoring exclusiveness and purity of the cult of one God (Num 25:11–13, 1 Kings 19:10.14, Sir 48:1–2, 1 Macc 2:54.58, cf. also the behaviour of Jesus cleansing the Temple – John 2:17 or Rom 10:2, 2 Cor 7:7.11, 9:2, 11:2, Phil 3:6, Heb 10:27).399 The second meaning – as jealousy but also envy or jaundice – it pertains to the desire to possess what belongs to other people or to find oneself in a position or situation in which others are (cf. Acts 5:17, 13:45, Rom 13:13, 1 Cor 3:3, 2 Cor 12:20, Gal 5:20). The fact that the narrator of James has the second meaning in mind and jealousy is perceived here as a definitely negative attitude is confirmed by the fact of describing it as bitter πικρός. It seems to refer to the kind of envy felt and shown to people who pursue their plans, aims, ideas, and who are listened to and followed by others (cf. Acts 5:17 and 13:45). Such jealousy is combined in v. 14 and 16 with the term ἐριθεία which can be translated as intrigue, ambition, rivalry, although etymologically it indicates a hired worker, a servant (ἔριθος) who only seeks his own advantage and aims at achieving his own ambition; all this is accompanied by disputes, strife, intrigue, manipulation, swindle etc.,400 described in the latter part of v. 16. Love of one’s neighbours, feeling joy at their success, lack of any rivalry or envy would be a contradiction of such an attitude and a proof of possessing

398 In: S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 307. 399 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 381. 400 J. Kozyra, List św. Jakuba, p. 194.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

wisdom coming from God. It needs to be stressed that, in the opinion of the narrator of James, both jealousy/envy and ambition so profoundly influence hypocritical conduct that they are described as deeply anchored in human heart.401 It might mean that, due to the fact that the negative traits of wisdom that does not come from God are so firmly rooted in man (here depicted by means of a synecdoche pars pro toto as a heart) that it is impossible for the word “that has the power to save […] souls” (James 1:21) to be implanted. The two-element catalogue of the symptoms of wisdom that does not come from God in 3:16b – ἀκαταστασία καὶ πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα (“chaos/disorder and wickedness of every kind”) – by way of contrast, enables us to reconstruct and to point out the symptoms of God’s gift of unhypocritical wisdom. Such a strategy, based on a binary pattern and typical of sapiential literature, has already been used by the narrator of James. Before we compile the antithetical features in the form of a chart, it might be worthwhile to have a closer look at the phrases used here. It is noteworthy that the noun ἀκαταστασία, although it is usually translated as ‘disorder’, ‘disharmony’ or ‘chaos’, is a different form of the term ἀκατάστατος, used i.a. in James 1:8 to describe a changeable person characterised later on as doubleminded δίψυχος. This implies that being guided by illusory wisdom that does not come from God leads to instability and double-mindedness and this, in turn, as has already been said, hampers a sincere request for the divine gift of wisdom. This seems to be the essence of James’ understanding of illusory or hypocritical wisdom. Such wisdom “is earthly, unspiritual, devilish” (3:15); it does not come from God but it confirms people in their false belief that they possess God’s gift of wisdom, so they want to implant this conviction also in other people. What is more, they are often guided by “bitter envy and selfish ambition”. The second phrase – φαῦλον πρᾶγμα – is related to the typical way of thinking of the narrator of James and to the convention of the letter to the diaspora. It is semantically very broad, may be understood in many ways and take on specific meanings depending on the situation of the recipients. The adjective φαῦλος is usually translated as ‘wicked’; it appears in James only here in combination with the polysemous noun πρᾶγμα (‘thing’, ‘thought’, ‘idea’, ‘issue’, ‘conduct’, ‘activity’). In other places of the NT φαῦλος usually refers to actions (cf. John 5:29, 3:20, Rom 9:11, 2 Cor 5:10),402 but it seems that in James it is used in reference to conduct in general, and this comprises actions, words and thoughts. Such a broad semantic field is indicated by the pronoun πᾶν ‘every’. The general introductory phrase “wickedness of every kind” is specified and exemplified in James 4:11–12. The example of wickedness in the context of illusory

401 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 304. 402 Ibid., p. 309.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

271

272

The Structural Commentary

wisdom and of the reconstruction of the features of unhypocritical wisdom is not coincidental – from the internal aspect (deluding oneself about one’s own piety in 1:26 or about the origin of wisdom and the conduct considered to be wise in 3:14–16), the narrator moves on to the external aspect comprising interpersonal relations. In other words – a false vision of one’s own piety, faith and wisdom, and being seen as wise and pious by others, leads to the belief that one can accuse, judge and condemn other people, which basically means usurping God’s judicial authority (cf. James 1:20). When proceeding to the external aspects and the examples of false wisdom, James naturally makes use of a transition. The apostrophe “brothers” as well as frequent changes of the form (from the 2nd person plural through participles to the 3rd person singular and then to the 2nd person singular) can be treated as indicators of the transition. The variety of forms and dynamism of changes resembles the transitions in 1:26, 2:19 and 3:15. In particular, the change from the 3rd person to the 2nd person singular introduces an element of personalism and individual approach to the recipient, which perfectly well corresponds with the specification and exemplification of “wickedness of every kind”. The crucial verbs which bond together the description of the external aspects of illusory wisdom are καταλαλέω that means ‘speaking against somebody’, ‘undermining someone’s authority’ (cf. Num 21:5) or ‘slandering/insulting someone’s dignity’ (Ps 101[100]:5, 1 Pet 3:16) and κρίνω denoting primarily ‘judging’ but also ‘criticizing’, ‘accusing’ and ‘condemning’. The narrator develops here the general statement from 1:26, concerning control over the tongue, and he synthesises envy, intrigues and ambition from 3:16 as the reasons for evil speech and mutual accusations; he then illustrates “wickedness of every kind” as speaking “evil against one another”, which in turn leads to judging.403 In 4:11, he makes use of internal opposition:404 the call for positive action Μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων “do not speak evil against one another” and consequences of negative actions, marked by the change of verb forms into more abstract and parabolic ones: ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ ἢ κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον (whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law). As the context suggests, κρίνω implies here not so much an objective, fair judgement as condemnation of the behaviour, actions or motivations of the judged person. In the second, negative part of the opposition, we can clearly notice references to sapiential tradition, and particularly to Wis 1:11 (cf. 1 Pet 2:1 and 1 Clem. 30:3: “Let us clothe ourselves with concord […], keeping ourselves far from all whispering and evil speaking”405 ) as 403 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 437. 404 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 174. 405 Clement of Rome, First Epistle, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html [accessed: 07.11.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

well as connotations related to slandering words of famous Old Testament figures; in the context of the law this will certainly be the accusatory speech of Miriam and Aaron against Moses, and simultaneously God’s obvious defence of the latter (Num 12:1–8). This allusion is also reflected on the rhetorical and theological level. If νόμος “the law” is treated as a synecdoche (and this is marked by the additional remark in 4:12), then the hypocritical, slandering speech against another person is actually an action aimed against God and means judgement (criticism) of God himself, who will, anyway, eventually defend the accused person and will bring the accuser to justice (Num 12:9–15). There is still another way in which judgement or speaking against somebody can be understood. This time it concerns being guided by false assumptions or appearances that make it possible to consider someone as pious (religious), faithful and gifted with wisdom. Speaking against somebody is in the NT often related to envy (a combination similar to the one in 3:14.16 and 4:11 can also be observed in 2 Cor 12:20, 1 Pet 2:1).406 This may mean that false evaluation of someone’s piety, faith and wisdom as positive features may be the result of envy, intrigue or ambition whose aim is not just to be seen as the adored pious and wise man but to take his position. What seems to be revealed here is again hesitancy and internal conflict between admiration and envy or ambition, which is reflected in hypocritical speech and judgement. The final part of v. 11 starts with another transitive change of verb forms and a shift from an abstract image to a direct accusation of the recipient – the most personal statements in the 2nd person singular appear at this point. On the one hand, the formula εἰ δὲ νόμον κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόμου ἀλλὰ κριτής (if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge) sums up the whole of v. 11, on the other hand, it is an introduction to the theological and eschatological explanation in v. 12. (the phrase ποιητὴς νόμου a “doer of the law” certainly harks back to James 1:25). The fragment is also rich in rhetorical devices: apart from the narrator’s beloved polyptoton, the tool which juxtaposes different forms and grammatical categories derived from the root κριν- and various forms of the noun νόμος, we can also find here the chiasmus (A – judge; B – the law): “…you judge (A) the law (B); the law (B’) a judge (A’)…” The tension of such a rhetorically dense conclusion must be released in the climax which comes in v. 12. V. 12 – in opposition to v. 11 – makes use of only two rhetorical figures: polyptoton (one judge and to judge) and a rhetorical question: σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ, ὁ κρίνων τὸν πλησίον “So who are you to judge your neighbour?” In this play on form, we can see the intention to differentiate the understanding of the noun ‘judge’ κριτής and the participle ‘judging’ ὁ κρίνων (the NRSV translation uses here the verb form

406 Cf. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 43.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

273

274

The Structural Commentary

‘to judge’). The first word has a theological character – it refers to God and his saving authority: God, as “the judge”, has the power/possibility ‘to save’ σῶσαι or ‘to condemn’ ἀπολέσαι (cf. Deut 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6). Man, as a usurper, puts himself in a position ‘to judge’ or – as v. 11 implies – ‘to assess’, ‘to criticise’ and ‘to accuse’ or ‘condemn’. Thus, the narrator comes back to his antithetical theological and anthropological perspective revealed earlier, when wisdom that comes from above (James 1:5–8, 16–18) and irenic wisdom (James 1:19–20, 4:1–3) have been discussed: God is different from man. It is not a coincidence that the verb σῴζω ‘to save’ is mentioned as the first one among the competences of God as the Judge, and damnation is described with the verb ἀπόλλυμι to even more emphatically underscore the difference between hypocritical judgement, the accusatory assessment of man, and God’s eschatological judgement. What is noteworthy here are terms that draw upon Old Testament tradition. It is true that, particularly in extrabiblical tradition, it was Moses who was called the lawgiver (like, e.g., in Philo’s De vita Mosis 2:9), but the author of James clearly refers to the LXX and to the presentation of God as the one who writes and gives the Law (e.g. Exod 24:12). The tradition which recognises God as the only fair judge is even more abundant (Isa 33:22, Gen 18:25, Ps 7:12, 51[50]:6, 75[74]:8, Sir 35:12). The phrase itself – εἷς ἐστιν [ὁ] νομοθέτης καὶ κριτής, (there is one lawgiver and judge) is reminiscent of Shema from 2:19 εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός (God is one). Now the link between 2:19 and 4:12 is revealed: while 2:19 discusses incomplete faith, only limited to the declaration “God is one”, 4:12 points out the fact that upholding the false belief in one’s own wisdom, not coming from God, results i.a. in usurping God’s authority and putting oneself in God’s position, and this is a thing even demons never do. Hence, a dramatic rhetorical question is asked: “So who are you to judge your neighbour?” As in the case of irenic wisdom (James 1:19–20), where the motif of usurping God’s authority appeared, we can see here a reference to the commandment of love. This time, the starting point is acting against “your neighbour”, which also means acting against God. Again, the narrator of James draws the attention of his audience to the indissolubility and integrity of the whole commandment of love. The eschatological and accusatory motif is continued in James 5:9. On the one hand, the author uses similar lexis – κρίνω, κριτής; on the other hand, he employs slightly different images and forms – there is another change from the 2nd person singular to the 2nd person plural407 and another transition, accompanied by the apostrophe “brothers”, whose aim is to draw and keep the attention of the audience. Improper conduct is exemplified here as complaining/grumbling. The verb στενάζω is usually translated as groaning; and sometimes – contextually – it implies

407 Cf. the explanation of this change by L.T. Johnson, The Use of Leviticus 19, p. 394.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

frustration, some kind of suffering or oppression (cf. Exod 2:23–24, 6:5).408 In the context of meditation upon wisdom, this could suggest complaining about those who might contribute to some kind of suffering or discomfort of the ones who believe in their own piety, wisdom and faith or faithfulness. As has been shown above – the conviction of one’s own piety, faith and wisdom may be a source of self-delusion or of the delusion of others; here, it additionally brings about a hypocritical cry (groan) to God for intervention against others.409 Thus, grumbling obviously results from a negative assessment, judgement or accusation of those one grumbles about. This is also marked by the verb κρίνω used here first of all as the synonym for στενάζω, secondly, in the same way as in 4:11–12 – meaning accusation, condemnation and usurping God’s authority. The phrase itself – μὴ στενάζετε, […] ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε (do not complain/grumble […], so that you may not be judged) – very much resembles Matt 7:1 and Luke 6:37a. In all three cases, the verb κρίνω is used in the aorist passive (with passivum theologicum), which suggests a single, comprehensive judgement rendered by God in the end times. This is additionally confirmed by the image of “the Judge [who] is standing at the doors” – here in the plural form, difficult to explain: τῶν θυρῶν (Rev 3:20, cf. Matt 24:33, Mark 13:29, although the gospels do not specify who or what is standing “at the doors”). While earlier (James 4:12) the Judge and the Lawgiver could rather be associated with God (the Father), now the title may, but does not have to, be used in relation to Jesus.410 James again makes use of the typical manoeuvre – the intended ambiguity is open to interpretation which depends on the competence and situation of the audience. The meditation upon unhypocritical wisdom is concluded with James 5:12. In contrast to the introductory 1:26, opening the reflection in a general manner called here abstract and parabolic, the conclusion in 5:12 has a character of a very specific instruction on how to overcome hesitancy and inner conflict, characteristic of hypocrisy. The concluding nature of 5:12 is underlined by the transitively used apostrophe “my brothers” and the phrase “above all” πρὸ πάντων411 (cf. 2 Cor 13:11).412 The narrator also returns to the initial motif, of particular significance in the context 408 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 494. 409 L.T. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God, p. 129–131; followed by S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 414 link the verb στενάζω used here with the way it is used in Job 24:12, Sir 36:25, Ezek 21:6–7, Lam 1:8.21 as grumbling both against God and against other people at the moment of suffering. The interpretation is influenced by the linear reading of James and by looking at James 5:9 as part of the reflection upon endurance as well as by the remark about Job in James 5:11. 410 S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 415; see also the doubts of S. Laws, Commentary, p. 213. 411 On the meaning of the phrase πρὸ πάντων ‘above all’, see: S. Laws, Commentary, p. 219–220. 412 Cf. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 504; otherwise S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 424; P.H. Davids, James, p. 188, T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 189, who see it as an initial phrase rather than a final one.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

275

276

The Structural Commentary

of defining hypocritical and unhypocritical wisdom – the behaviour of a pious and religious man, to whom calling God as a witness in different types of oaths may sound natural.413 Timothy B. Cargal claims that 5:12 should not be discussed separately solely as the prohibition of swearing but as a general indicator of an individual’s relationship with God and with other people. The relationship should be based on sincere explicitness,414 without the need to invoke any external element which would render human conduct or speech of someone gifted by God with wisdom more reliable. The narration of James develops in a manner characteristic of sapiential literature, making use of binary opposition prohibition (12a – a negative element)/command (12b – a positive element). The prohibition μὴ ὀμνύετε “do not swear” is expressed with the imp. praes. and pertains to the practice of swearing, most probably quite common among the original recipients of the letter. Its commonness is confirmed by a similar demand uttered by Jesus in Matt 5:33–37.415 James, however, does not mean a total prohibition on swearing (as e.g. Matt 23:16–22). Both the OT and the NT, in particular circumstances, allow some forms of oath-taking, even by the name of God (see: Exod 22:10–12, Deut 6:13, 1 Kings 8:31–33, Mark 6:23, Acts 2:30, Rev 10:6, Heb 3:11.18, 4:3, 6:13.16, 7:21). The prohibition most probably refers to false oaths, taken to validate lies or hypocritical behaviour toward God, other people or toward oneself. Such oaths are criticised already in the OT (see especially Lev 19:12, Zech 8:17, Wis 14:28), in the same way as misusing or taking God’s name in oaths in vain (Deut 5:11). Also Josephus objects to the misuse or depreciation of oaths, especially those taken under pressure, citing the example of Herod who, by means of oaths, forced his people into submission and faithfulness: But for the rest of the multitude, he required that they should be obliged to take an oath of fidelity to him; and at the same time compelled them to swear that they would bear him good will, and continue certainly so to do in his management of the government. […] The Essens also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition (Ant. XV 10:4, cf. Bell. Iud. II 135.139.142, Cairo Damascus Document 15:1–3, 9:9–10).

The same can be said of other Hellenistic writers, i.a. Diogenes Laertius in Vitae philosophorum – Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers VIII 22).416 It seems that admonitions against misusing oaths, closest to the ones expressed by James, can be found in sapiential literature that warns both against swearing and against 413 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 219. 414 T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 189. 415 On the relationship between the two texts see: S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 424–426; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 507–508, S. Laws, Commentary, p. 222–224. 416 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 221.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Wisdom is unhypocritical (James 1:26, 2:19, 3:14–16, 4:11–12, 5:9.12)

calling the name of the Lord on the occasion. Simultaneously, it very strongly links such oaths to the sinfulness of the people taking them, to their depravity, and warns against the consequences of perjury, which is an idea extensively exploited in James (Sir 23:9–11, Wis 14:28–30). James provides us with a very general list of objects Jews supported their oaths with: “heaven”, which can be seen as a periphrasis of the name of God, “or by earth or by any other oath”. It needs to be once again stressed that what is meant in the context of unhypocritical wisdom is not a prohibition to swear at all but a prohibition of false swearing, calling God to be the witness or uttering words supposed to be the evidence of someone’s reliability instead of their actions and conduct (cf. 2 Cor 1:23, Gal 1:20, Phil 1:8, 1 Thess 2:5). The call for integrity and explicitness ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί, καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ (let your “Yes” be yes and your “No” be no) is at the same time an instruction on how to avoid hesitancy and inner conflict and a demand for honesty (lack of hypocrisy) in the relation with God, with oneself and with other people. Hence, it refers to all the spheres mentioned earlier. Unhypocritical wisdom is synonymous with full integrity of words/declarations and action/behaviour which do not require any oaths to be reliable – μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον (either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath). On the contrary – words and declarations become reliable due to one’s conduct and actions. The justification of both the prohibition and the demand in 5:12c refers in lexical terms both to 4:11–12 and to 5:9: ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε (so that you will not come under judgement). The con. aori. used here suggests complexity and completeness of the verdict. The phrase ὑπὸ κρίσιν πίπτω means ‘submission’, ‘responsibility for something and towards someone’, ‘being judged’, and the judgement entails condemnation. We can clearly see references to previous deliberations – on the one hand, an eschatological orientation; on the other hand, the accusing and condemning assessment, applied earlier to others by the person who has fallen under judgement”. In conclusion, we can present all the above considerations in the form of a table. Unhypocritical wisdom has been reconstructed here in opposition to illusory, hypocritical wisdom depicted and criticised in the text.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

277

278

The Structural Commentary

Endowed with the gift of wisdom

Devoid of the gift of wisdom

– able to differentiate between earthly wisdom and: – that coming from God;

– spiritual; – integrated with works; – imitating the unity/integrity of God – James 2:19a–b; – guided by the love of God/by true multidimensional religiousness; – able to control their tongue; – guided by the love of their neighbours; – guided by humility and modesty; – protecting the truth; – accepting their neighbours; – obedient to the law; – not judging others; – not judging the law; – not usurping God’s prerogatives – James 4:12a; 5:9c; – feeling no need to confirm words with an oath – James 5:12; – not being subject to eschatological judgment – James 5:9d.12f.

– unable to differentiate between God’s wisdom and wisdom: – that does not come from God – James 3:15a; – earthly – James 3:15b; – unspiritual – James 3:15c; – devilish – not integrated with works – James 2:19, 3:16d; – chaotic/torn – James 3:16c; – acting in a wicked manner – James 3:16d; – apparently/unidimensionally pious/religious – James 1:26a; – unable to control their tongue – James 1:26b, 5:9a; – guided by bitter envy – James 3:14a.16a; – guided by ambition – James 3:14b.16b; – boastful – James 3:14c; – acting against the truth – James 3:14d – speaking evil against their neighbours – James 4:11a–b, 5:9a; – speaking evil against the law – James 4:11d; – judging others – James 4:11c; – judging the law – James 4:11e; – usurping God’s prerogatives – James 4:12; – sanctioning falsehood with an oath – James 5:12; – being subject to eschatological judgement – James 5:9b.12f.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Conclusion (James 3:13)

2.10 Conclusion (James 3:13) 3:13

Is there anyone wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good behaviour/ conduct his works done with/in the humility/understanding/gentleness [born] of wisdom.

The narrator of James ends his reflection by highlighting the main conclusion which can be drawn from the meditation upon features and symptoms of wisdom: integrated wisdom coming from God is manifested through acting according to the divine will expressed in the commandment of love. Again, the author of the letter makes use of his favourite method – ambiguity – which allows the recipients to read the text in several ways, depending on their needs and competence, and in line with the convention of the letter to the diaspora. The text starts with a rhetorical question, although in combination with the demand to show the proofs of wisdom and understanding, it may be read as a conditional sentence417 (“If someone is wise and understanding among you” – protasis; he should “show the works…” – apodosis), what is even more justified when the text is read in a linear manner. The structural approach does not link these sentences directly to the preceding text,418 and the rhetorical question is treated here as the indicator of the concluding transition. Since the recipients already know what real wisdom consists in and how it is manifested, they can answer the question themselves and recognise God’s gift of wisdom in their own behaviour and the behaviour of others. This means that the conclusion is addressed to everyone – both to the original, historical recipients of the letter and to those who read it later, what corresponds very well with the assumptions of the literary convention used here – a circular, ahistorical letter to the diaspora. It also justifies the use of elements characteristic of sapiential literature. What is noteworthy is the use of a certain framework – the meditation upon wisdom is initiated with the encouragement to ask God for it (James 1:5), while at the end, we can find a demand to show wisdom received from God. It is not a coincidence that similar phrases (τις ὑμῶν and τίς ἐν ὑμῖν) and similar verb forms – imperatives of the 3rd person singular (αἰτείτω ‘ask’ and δειξάτω ‘show’) have been used here. All these elements indicate a similar, inclusive approach to recipients in James 1:5–8 and James 3:13. Two synonymous terms are used in the rhetorical question: σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων wise and understanding. The adjective σοφός is quite often used, ἐπιστήμων does not appear anywhere else in the NT, but the combination of the same or similar

417 Cf. the critical apparatus; it can also be found in minuscule 436 and in Nilus of Ancyra. 418 On the relationship between James 3:13 (or more precisely 3:13–18) with James 3:1–12 and with chapter 4 see i.a. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 158; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 373–374; H. Krabbendam, The Epistle of James, p. 613.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

279

280

The Structural Commentary

terminology can be found in the OT. In Deut 1:13.15, the terms refer to the leaders of the chosen people, in Deut 4:6 to the people themselves (cf. Isa 5:21, 6:10), in 2 Chron 2:11 to king Solomon, in Dan 5:1.11 to the prophet (cf. also 1 Cor 1:20), which sometimes leads to narrowing down the group of recipients of the rhetorical question to the community leaders and teachers.419 The two terms are usually treated as a stylistic device typical of Jewish literature. It seems, however, that the fact of apposing two similar but not entirely semantically synonymous words in the conclusion aims at synthesizing the whole reflection upon wisdom. The narrator once again underscores the necessity for an integrated approach to wisdom that consists of two aspects – the external one and the internal one.420 The first one is represented by the first adjective σοφός that refers to the practical aspect of wisdom, to a certain type of casuistry – conduct in particular circumstances, described in a detailed and picturesque way in the letter. The second aspect is encapsulated in the adjective ἐπιστήμων that illustrates the more internal, theoretical, intuitive, intellectual and volitional element of wisdom.421 We can see here the complementarity of the external perception of someone as a wise person and this person’s internal wisdom, in the same way as earlier we have encountered the complementarity and integrity of faith and works, of hearing the word and living according to it, of reading and meditating upon the Law and remembering it, following it and obeying it. Separation of these elements entails inner conflict and double-mindedness, characteristic of someone described in James as δίψυχος. The demand to “show by your good behaviour/conduct that his works are done with/in the humility/understanding/gentleness [born] of wisdom” is also related to integrity and complementarity. On the one hand, it can be considered a synthesis of the elements of the rhetorical question: σοφός “wisdom” (focused on acting) and ἐπιστήμων ‘knowing’/‘understanding’/‘theoretical knowledge’ lead to καλὴ ἀναστροφή ‘good life’/‘behaviour’/‘conduct’. On the other hand, τὰ ἔργα “works” may refer to the external aspect of wisdom (in the same way as σοφός), and ‘good life’/‘behaviour’/‘conduct’ to its internal aspects (like ἐπιστήμων). It should be noted that in terms of syntax the demand may raise certain difficulties and thus lead to, most probably intended, ambiguity of the interpretation.

419 Linear reading of the text and the assumption of coherence of 3:1–12 and 3:13 induce some commentators to see in the terms σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων titles given to teachers; see: J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 244; R.P. Martin, James, p. 129; S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 298; D. Perkins, The Wisdom We Need. James 1,5–8; 3,13–18, “The Theological Educator” 34 (1986), p. 19; otherwise i.a. S. Laws, Commentary, p. 159. D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 376–377, who read these terms in a much more inclusive manner. 420 Cf. T.B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 151. 421 H. Krabbendam, The Epistle of James, p. 615.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Conclusion (James 3:13)

The appeal starts with the verb δείκνυμι, the same and in the similar form as in 2:18: δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου “show me your faith” (the difference is only the 2nd and 3rd person singular). In both cases the imp. aor. has an authoritative character, it means the demand to show “works” in all their aspects, comprehensively. The noun ἔργα “works” undoubtedly refers to the verb δειξάτω as its direct object. It is more difficult to explain the phrase ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας “in the humility/understanding/ gentleness of wisdom”. The phrase can be combined with the verb “show” – then ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας may have the function of the indirect object: “show […] [the] works […] in the humility/understanding/gentleness [born] of wisdom”, which means that the demonstration of the works as proofs of wisdom should be done in humility and/or gentleness that are the features of wisdom.422 The phrase ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας can also be linked to works – then the expression will have the function of a slightly elliptical modifier: “Show […] [the] works [which have been/are done423 ] in the humility/understanding/gentleness of wisdom”. The reading of δειξάτω τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας as an elliptical ACI: “Show […] [that your] works [have been/are done] in the humility/understanding/ gentleness of wisdom” goes in a similar direction. The sequence of phrases and the proximity of “works” and the expression “in the humility/understanding/gentleness of wisdom” might suggest that the second or the third option should be chosen. The phrase ἐν πραΰτητι itself may be treated as an equivalent of an adjective: “humble/meek/gentle” wisdom, and thus the whole phrase would be related to the index of the features of wisdom in 3:17, where the attributes are described with the help of adjectives. It is noteworthy that ἐν πραΰτητι can be understood both as the behaviour full of humility and full of gentleness and understanding. In the first case “works done with the humility [born] of wisdom” would describe conduct and attitude towards God, the way in which the first commandment of love is fulfilled. The second option: “works […] done with gentleness and understanding born of wisdom” should be understood as conduct towards people whom one should never accuse, judge or condemn, thus taking over God’s prerogatives; this would mean the fulfilment of the second commandment of love. The idea of integrity, accompanying the whole narration, suggests that what should be taken into consideration here is again the intended ambiguity and a close relationship between the two parts of the commandment of love. In all the instances, genetivus σοφίας is treated as genetivus originis, and the expression is understood as: “humility and/or gentleness/understanding coming from/born of wisdom”.424 In other words, both 422 See: S. McKnight, The Letter, p. 303. 423 Lack of any formal predicate allows the verb which takes its position to be reconstructed with the use of any possible tense. 424 Other variants of the genitive form (e.g. gen. qualitatis or gen. limitationis) are analysed i.a. by B. Reicke, The Epistles, p. 41.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

281

282

The Structural Commentary

humility and gentleness are the fruit of real wisdom that cannot be demonstrated in any other way than by humility toward its Giver.425 Any other attitude shows that the wisdom does not come from God. The juxtaposition of wisdom and humility/gentleness certainly has its origin in Jewish sapiential literature (Prov 11:2, Sir 3:17, 4:8, 10:28, 45:4). In the context of the Letter of James, humility, gentleness and understanding are also synonymous with lack of “friendship with the world”, particularly the Hellenistic, pagan world where πραΰτης was not considered a virtue but a weakness, while boasting, excessive self-confidence and self-promotion – so strongly criticised in James – were seen as desirable qualities.426 Such an inversion may imply references to the kingdom of God and to Jesus who calls himself “gentle and humble in heart” (Matt 11:29), even when he enters Jerusalem as a king (Matt 21:5). As has already been said, καλὴ ἀναστροφή ‘good life’/‘behaviour’/‘conduct’ in this sentence can be seen both as the result of integrating wisdom and understanding and as the explanation of the meaning of the adjectives σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων used in the rhetorical question. Specific “works” τὰ ἔργα mentioned in the letter would then denote the external aspect of wisdom, and ‘good life’/‘behaviour’/‘conduct’ – the internal aspect. The noun ἀναστροφή “behaviour/conduct” appears in James only once but its meaning can be reconstructed on the basis of the texts that are closest to it in generic, lexical and theological terms – 1 and 2 Pet.427 In Peter’s letters, ‘good life’/‘behaviour’/‘conduct’ means first of all obedience to God (1 Pet 1:15), secondly – giving witness to faith among gentiles by the example of good and moral life (1 Pet 2:12, 3:1–2, in 1 Pet 2:12 behaviour is treated as a hyperonym and works as a hyponym), thirdly – fear of God, gentleness, understanding, humility (1 Pet 3:16), fourthly – piousness (2 Pet 3:11). This implies that ἀναστροφή ‘behaviour’ could really refer to the knowledge of the rules of good conduct (the internal aspect), while τὰ ἔργα “works” – to the practical implementation of these principles (the external aspect). The sequence of terms and phrases used here indicates the natural course of action: from the knowledge of the principles of life ἀναστροφή → through works τὰ ἔργα → to demonstrating wisdom through humility and gentleness ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας. Thus, in the conclusion, the author of The Letter of James once again brings to the attention of his audience the similarity between wisdom and faith and underlines it with appropriate lexis. Both wisdom and faith should be seen as the gift of God, which encompasses the whole man, prevents him from being torn and divided 425 Cf. above – the meaning of ἐν πραΰτητι in the description of humble and compassionate wisdom (James 1:21b). 426 S. Laws, Commentary, p. 160; P.H. Davids, James, p. 96; D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 380. 427 D.J. Moo, The Letter, p. 378. Apart from that, the noun appears quite frequently in Corpus Paulinum – 1 Tim 4:12, Gal 1:13, Eph 4:22.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Conclusion (James 3:13)

(δίψυχος), and helps him become – like God – integrated, consistent and faithful. Wisdom is not only an internal intellectual concept,428 it does not just mean the knowledge of the rules of proper behaviour, commandments, or discursive reflection upon them, but also concrete actions shaped by these internal aspects. Like faith, also wisdom encompasses and transforms the whole man, helping him to see reality from God’s perspective, often inversive to the perspective of this world, because it is eschatologically and soteriologically determined.

428 P. Hartin, James and Q Sayings, p. 100.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

283

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

3.

Summary

The Letter of James counts among the most enigmatic and ambiguous texts of not only the New Testament but of early Christian literature in general.1 It is not known by whom and when it was written though the prescript mentions the author’s name – James. It is not known to which community or communities it was addressed although the twelve tribes in the diaspora are mentioned as the recipients in the address. Its ancient reception was quite equivocal. The Letter of James may on the one hand beguile readers with its unique lexis and elegant Hellenistic style; on the other hand, one may be repelled by its lack of coherence, excessive didacticism and scarcity of theological motifs, in particular Christological ones. A real ‘black legend’ developed around the letter in the sixteenth century, when its apostolicity was questioned by Martin Luther who called it an ‘epistle of straw’. Controversies regarding the authorship, the date of composition of the letter, its addressees and, when compared to other biblical writings, similarities and differences on lexical, semantic and theological levels generated debates concerning its literary genre, coherence of the text, its associations with other texts as well as intertextual strategies. This structural commentary is part of this discussion. In the history of exegesis, the Letter of James was often commented in correlation with the letters of Paul. While the Apostle of Nations has repeatedly emphasised in his writings that we are saved by faith, not by works, James points out that faith without works is dead. This alleged opposition has lasted throughout the history of thousands of studies and for a long time it was the source of dispute between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran community. The positions of both religious communities recently have largely been agreed, which is reflected in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation. At the end of the document, we read “that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification […] are acceptable. Therefore, the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths” (40). What is emphasised in this commentary is not the issue of justification and the relationship between deeds and faith but the sapiential character of the Letter of

1 M.A. Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James. The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, the Law of Freedom, Leiden–Boston–Köln 2001, p. 1.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

286

Summary

James. It has become possible due to an innovative view of the structure of the letter. The authors propose a structure organised around the catalogue of attributes of wisdom which James enumerates in 3:17: “But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere”. The reference to all nine features of wisdom seems to be confirmed in the particular parts of the letter. These qualities are: 1) descent from above 2) purity 3) the pursuit of peace 4) humility/forbearance 5) obedience to the law 6) mercy 7) bearing good fruits 8) impartiality 9) lack of hypocrisy. The structure of the Letter of James – organised around the attributes of wisdom – has greatly influenced the structure of this commentary. Of course, the whole letter is discussed in the commentary, but not in the traditional linear way, i.e. not chapter by chapter. The pericopes of the letter have been grouped in particular parts of the commentary, depending on which aspect of Christian wisdom is discussed in them. It seems that the second important value of this study is its ecumenical dimension. The commentary appeared a year after the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s declaration of his theses and testifies to the ecumenical rapprochement between Catholic and Lutheran theology. In the common declaration of the World Lutheran Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the authors emphasised the fact that, although the past cannot be changed, it can be transformed so that it becomes an impulse for the growth of unity and a sign of hope for the world, hope for breaking the divisions. It is to be hoped that the ecumenical structural commentary on the Letter of James can be part of this trend of ecumenical activities.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Bibliography

Biblical texts Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph, Stuttgart 1975. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, ed. Robert Weber, Stuttgart 1983. Novum Testamentum graece et latine, ed. August Merk, Romae 1964. Novum Testamentum graece, ed. Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland, Stuttgart 2012. Septuaginta, ed. Alfred Ralphs, Stuttgart 1984. Bibbia TOB. Edizione Integrale, Torino 1992. Die Bibel. Lutheruebersetzung, Stuttgart 2016. Die Bibel nach der Uebersetzung Martin Luthers, Stuttgart 1984. La Bible. Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible comprenant l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament traduits sur les textes originaux hébreu et grec avec introductions, notes essentielles, glossaire, Paris 1992. Biblia de Jerusalén. Nueva edición totalmente revisada y aumentada, Bilbao 1975. Biblia Jerozolimska, Poznań 2006. Biblia to jest Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu z apokryfami. Nowy przekład, Warszawa 1990. Grecko-polski Nowy Testament. Wydanie interlinearne z kodami gramatycznymi, transl. Remigiusz Popowski, Michał Wojciechowski, Warszawa 1994. Die Heilige Schrift. Altes und Neues Testament, Bonn 1966. The New Jerusalem Bible, New York 1985. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA 1989. Nowy Testament. Ekumeniczny Przekład Przyjaciół, Warszawa 2017. Pismo Święte Nowego Testamentu i Psalmy. Najnowszy przekład z języków oryginalnych z komentarzem, Częstochowa 2005. Pismo Święte Nowego Testamentu i Psalmy. Przekład ekumeniczny na trzecie tysiąclecie, Warszawa 2001. Pismo Święte Starego Testamentu, vol. 3: Księgi dydaktyczne. Przekład ekumeniczny, Warszawa 2008. Pismo Święte Starego Testamentu, vol. 5: Księgi deuterokanoniczne. Przekład ekumeniczny, Warszawa 2011. Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu w przekładzie z języków oryginalnych, Poznań–Warszawa 1990.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

288

Bibliography

Apocryphal literature The Apocalypse of 2 Enoch, transl. Robert H. Charles, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/ 2enoch.html [accessed: 26.08.2019]. The Apocryphon of James, transl. Francis E. Williams, http://gnosis.org/naghamm/jam.html [accessed: 17.04.2017]. Apokalipsa Barucha syryjska, Księga Objawienia Barucha, syna Neriji, przełożona z języka greckiego na syryjski, transl. Jerzy Woźniak, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 407–442. The Book of Enoch, https://www.yahwehswordarchives.org/book-of-enoch/hanoch_enoch_ 096.htm [accessed: 16.08.2019]. Book of Enoch, transl. Robert H. Charles, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html [accessed: 22.10.2019]. The Doctrine of Addai, transl. George Phillips, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/addai_2_text.html [accessed: 20.06.2019]. The First Apocalypse of James, transl. William R. Schoedel, http://www.earlychristianwritings. com/text/apocalypsejames1st.html [accessed: 22.06.2019]. The Gospel of the Hebrews, transl. Montague Rhode James, http://earlychristianwritings.com/ text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html [accessed: 23.06.2019]. The Gospel of Thomas, transl. B. Layton, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/ gospelthomas12.html [accessed: 24.06.2019]. The History of Joseph the Carpenter, transl. Alexander Walker, [in:] Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe, James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, Buffalo, NY 1886. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/ fathers/0805.htm [accessed: 22.06.2019]. Księga Henocha etiopska, transl. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 141–189. Księga Henocha słowiańska, transl. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 197–214. Myszor, Wincenty, Pierwsza i druga Apokalipsa Jakuba z V Kodeksu z Nag Hammadi, „Śląskie Studia Historyczno-Teologiczne” 33 (2000), p. 62. The Protoevangelium of James, transl. Alexander Walker, [in:] Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe, James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, Buffalo, NY 1886. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847. htm [accessed: 22.06.2019]. Psalmy Salomona, transl. Antoni Paciorek, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 109–128. Psalms of Solomon, http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/psalms-of-solomon/16.html [accessed: 24.07.2019]. The Second Apocalypse of James, transl. Charles W. Hedrick, http://gnosis.org/naghamm/2ja. html [accessed: 23.06.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Ancient Christian writers

Second Baruch, The Book of the Apocalypse of Baruch The Son of Neriah, https://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0075_baruch_second.html [accessed: 03.07.2019]. Testament Abrahama, transl. Marian Wittlieb, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 84–100. Testament Beniamina: o prawym myśleniu, transl. Antoni Paciorek, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 78–81. Testament Dana: o gniewie i kłamstwie, transl. Antoni Paciorek, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 65–67. Testament Isachara: o prostocie, transl. Antoni Paciorek, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 61–62. Testament Lewiego: o kapłaństwie i wyniesieniu, transl. Antoni Paciorek, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 50–55. Testament Symeona; o zawiści, transl. Antoni Paciorek, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 48–50. The Testament of Abraham, transl. W.A. Craigie, [in:] Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9. ed. Allan Menzies, Buffalo, NY 1896. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/1007.htm [accessed: 11.07.2019]. The Testament of Benjamin, transl. Robert H. Charles, http://www.earlychristianwritings. com/text/patriarchs-charles.html [accessed: 24.08.2019]. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Testament of Benjamin The Twelfth Son of Jacob and Rachel, transl. Robert H. Charles, https://www.sefaria.org/The_Testaments_of_the_ Twelve_Patriarchs%2C_The_Testament_of_Benjamin_the_Twelfth_Son_of_Jacob_and_ Rachel.1.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en [accessed: 11.07.2019]. Testamenty dwunastu patriarchów, Wstęp, transl. Antoni Paciorek, [in:] Apokryfy Starego Testamentu, ed. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Warszawa 2000, p. 43–45. Witakowski, Witold, Nauka apostoła Addaja: wstęp, przekład z języka syryjskiego, komentarz, STV 22 (1984) 2, p. 181–213.

Ancient Christian writers Clement of Rome, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, transl. Charles H. Hoole, http://www. earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html [accessed: 05.09.2019]. Clement of Rome, First Epistle, transl. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html [accessed: 07.08.2019]. The Clementine Homilies, http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0050-0150,_ Pseudo_Clemens,_ Homilies_[Schaff], EN.pdf [accessed: 17.04.2017]. Didache, transl. James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, http://www.earlychristianwritings. com/text/didache-roberts.html [accessed: 20.06.2019]. The Epistle of Barnabas, transl. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings. com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html [accessed: 16.08.2019].

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

289

290

Bibliography

Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, transl. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, [in:] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff, Henry Wace, Buffalo, NY 1890. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/ fathers/250103.htm [accessed: 18.06.2019]. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of to the Smyrnaeans, transl. James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, [in:] Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe, James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, Buffalo, NY 1885. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm [accessed: 14.07.2019]. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html [accessed: 19.06.2019]. Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, transl. L. Pullan., E.W. Watson, [in:] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 9, ed. Philip Schaff, Henry Wace, Buffalo, NY 1899. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330204. htm [accessed: 18.06.2019]. Origen, Contra Celsum, transl. Frederick Crombie, [in:] Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe, James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, Buffalo, NY 1885. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161. htm [accessed: 21.06.2019]. Polycarp of Smyrna, The Epistle to the Philippians, transl. James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, [in:] Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Arthur Cleveland Coxe, James Donaldson, Alexander Roberts, Buffalo, NY 1885. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm [accessed: 14.07.2019]. Pseudo Clemens, Recognitions, http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0050-0150, [Schaff], EN.pdf [accessed: 17.04.2017]. The Recognitions of Clement, http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0050-0150,_ Pseudo_Clemens,_Recognitions_[Schaff],_EN.pdf [accessed: 17.04.2017]. The Shepherd of Hermas, transl. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, http://www.earlychristianwritings. com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html [accessed: 16.08.2019].

Other ancient writers Ateńczyk Mnezjergos do swoich domowników, transl. Jerzy Schnayder, [in:] List antyczny. Antologia, ed. Jerzy Schnayder, Wrocław 2006, p. 3–4. Diogenes Laertios, Żywoty i poglądy słynnych filozofów, transl. Irena Krońska, Bogdan Kupis, Kazimierz Leśniak, W. Olszewski, Warszawa 2004. Filon Aleksandryjski, Pisma, vol. 1, transl. Leon Joachimowicz, Warszawa 1986. Filon Aleksandryjski, Pisma, vol. 2, transl. Stanisław Kalinkowski, Kraków 1994. Józef Flawiusz, Dawne dzieje Izraela, transl. Zygmunt Kubiak, Jan Radożycki, ed. Eugeniusz Dąbrowski, Poznań–Warszawa–Lublin 1979. Józef Flawiusz, Przeciw Apionowi, Autobiografia, transl. Jan Radożycki, Warszawa 1996.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Dictionaries, synopses and concordances

Józef Flawiusz, Wojna żydowska, transl. Jan Radożycki, Poznań 1984. Korespondencja Pliniusza z cesarzem Trajanem, transl. Jerzy Schnayder, [in:] List antyczny. Antologia, ed. Jerzy Schnayder, Wrocław 2006, p. 26–45. Muchowski, Piotr, Rękopisy znad Morza Martwego. Qumran – Wadi Murabbaat – Masada, Kraków 1996. Platon, Państwo, transl. Władysław Witwicki, Warszawa 2010. Plutarch, Moralia, vol. 1, http://www.ifkika.uni.wroc.pl/fckimage/image/Plutarch%20%20Moralia%20cz.%201.pdf [accessed: 18.04.2017]. Plutrach, Moralia, vol. 2, http://biblioteka.kijowski.pl/antyk%20grecki/ %20plutarch%20z%20cheronei%20-%20moralia%20-2.pdf [accessed: 12.09.2017]. Rozgrymaszony Teon pisze do ojca, transl. Jerzy Manteuffel, [in:] List antyczny. Antologia, ed. Jerzy Schnayder, Wrocław 2006, p. 12–13. Seneca, Moral Letters to Lucilius, Letter 5 On the Philisopher’s Mean, https://en.wikisource. org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_5 [accessed: 02.07.2019]. Seneca, Syn marnotrawny do matki, transl. Jerzy Manteuffel, [in:] List antyczny. Antologia, ed. Jerzy Schnayder, Wrocław 2006, p. 11–12. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, transl. and ed. Pieter Willem van der Horst, Leiden 1978. Zasady etyki epikurejskiej, transl. Adam Krokiewicz, [in:] List Antyczny, Antologia, ed. Jerzy Schnayder, Wrocław 2006, pp. 165–171.

Dictionaries, synopses and concordances Aland, Kurt, Computer-Konkordanz zum Novum Testamentum Graece, Berlin–New York 1980. Aland, Kurt, Vollständige Konkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament, vol. 1-2, Berlin–New York 1978–1983. Even-Shoshan, Abraham, A New Concordance of the Bible. Thesaurus of Language of the Bible, Hebrew and Aramaic Roots, Words, Proper Names, Phrases and Synonyms, Jerusalem 1997. Głowiński, Michał, Kostkiewiczowa, Teresa, Okopień-Sławińska, Aleksandra, et al., Podręczny słownik terminów literackich, Warszawa 1994. A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek, ed. Ernest de Witt Burton, Edgar Johnson Goodspeed, Chicago 1947. Hatch, Edwin, Redpath, Henry Adeney, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books), Graz 1975. Morgenthaler, Robert, Statistik des neuestestamentlichen Wortschatzes, Zürich–Stuttgart 1972. Moulton, William F., Geden Alfred Shenington, A Concordance to the Greek Testament according to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers, Edinburgh 1978.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

291

292

Bibliography

Słownik teologii biblijnej, ed. Xavier Léon-Dufour, transl. Kazimierz Romaniuk, Poznań–Warszawa 1973. Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, Unveranderter Nachdruck der unter Mitwirkung von Lic. H.G. Opitz von H. Lietzmann, ed. Albert Huck, Tübingen 1975. Synopsis quattuor Evangeliorum. Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis, ed. Kurt Aland, Stuttgart 1996. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volumen, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Gerhard Frierdrich, Gerhard Kittel, Grand Rapids 2003. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. Gerhard Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, vol. 1, Grand Rapids 1997. The Westminster Dictionary of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric, ed. David E. Aune, Louiseville–London 2003.

Commentaries Allison, Dale C., James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, New York–London–New Delhi–Sydney 2013. Bauckham, Richard, James, New York 1999. Davids, Peter H., James (The New International Biblical Commentary), Peabody 1989. Davids, Peter H., The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New International Greek Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids 1982. Dibelius, Martin, Der Brief des Jakobus (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament), Göttingen 1964. Frankemöller, Hubert, Der Brief des Jakobus (Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 17/1–2), Würzburg 1994. Gundry, Robert H., Commentary on James, Grand Rapids 2011. Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York 1995. Kozyra, Józef, List św. Jakuba (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny), Częstochowa 2011. Laws, Sophie, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, Peabody 1980. Laws, Sophie, The Epistle of James, San Francisco 1980. Martin Ralph P., James (World Biblical Commentary 48), Waco 1988. McCartney, Dan G., James (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids 2009. McKnight, Scot, The Letter of James (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids 2010. Moo, Douglas J., The Letter of James, Grand Rapids 2000. Mussner, Franz, Jakobusbrief 2 (THKNT), Freiburg 1967. Nystrom, David P., James, Grand Rapids 1997. Popkes, Wiard, Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT), Leipzig 2001.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Studies

Reicke, Bo, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, Garden City 1964. Ropes, James Hardy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James, Edinburgh 1916. Rosik, Mariusz, Wróbel, Mirosław S., Langkammer, Hugolin, Komentarz do Listu św. Jakuba Apostoła, 1–2 Listu św. Piotra Apostoła, 1–3 Listu św. Jana Apostoła, Listu św. Judy i Apokalipsy, [in:] Komentarz teologiczno-pastoralny do Biblii Tysiąclecia, Nowy Testament, vol. 5, Poznań 2015. Wall, Robert, Community of Wise: The Letter of James (New Testament in Context), Valley Forge 1997.

Studies Adamczewski, Bartosz, Jakub, brat Pański, i jerozolimska wspólnota ubogich, “Collectanea Theologica” 74 (2004), no. 1, p. 65–82. Adamson, James B., James, the Man and his Message, Grand Rapids, 1989. Albl, Martin C., Are Any Among You Sick? The Health Care System in the Letter of James, JBL 121 (2002), no. 1, p. 123–143. Allison, Dale C., Blessing God and Cursing People. James 3,9–10, JBL 130 (2011), no. 2, p. 397–405. Amphoux, Christian-Bernard, Systemes ancients de division de l’Épître de Jacques et composition litteraire, “Biblica” 62 (1981), p. 309–390. Baasland, Ernst, Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes, [in:] Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung II. Principat, ed. Wolfgang Haase, Hildegard Temporini, Berlin 1988, p. 3554–3659. Backer, William R., Personal Speech. Ethics in the Epistle of James, Tübingen 1995. Batten, Alicja J., Rotting Riches. Economics in the Letter of James, “Vision” 14 (2014), no. 1, p. 6–11. Batten, Alicja J., What are they saying about the Letter of James, New York 2009. Bauckham, Richard, James at the Centre. A Jerusalem Perspective of New Testament, http://richardbauckham.co.uk/uploads/Accessible/James%20at%20the%20Centre. pdf [accessed: 1.06.2017]. Bauckham, Richard, James. Wisdom of James, disciple of Jesus the Sage (New Testament Readings), London–New York 1999. Bolewski, Włodzimierz, Teksty i pre-teksty, Warszawa 1998. Burkitt, Francis Crawford, Christian Beginnings, London 1924. Cargal, Timothy B., Restoring the Diaspora. Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James (Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series), Atlanta 1993. Carpenter, Craig B., James 4,5 Reconsidered, NTS 46 (2000), p. 189–205.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

293

294

Bibliography

Cheung, Luke L., The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of the Epistle of James, Carlisle 2003. Chilton, Bruce, James in Relation to Peter, Paul and the Remembrance of Jesus, [in:] The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, ed. Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner, Louisville 2001, p. 38–159. Ciecieląg, Jerzy, Jakub Sprawiedliwy, brat Pański jako postać historyczna, [in:] Ossuarium Jakuba, brata Jezusa. Odkrycie, które podzieliło uczonych, ed. Zdzisław J. Kapera, Kraków 2003, p. 9–37. The Confessions of the Lutheran Church, transl. Friedrich Bente, William Herman Theodore Dau, http://bookofconcord.org [accessed: 05.09.2019]. Crotty, Robert, Identifying the Poor in the Letter of James, “Colloquium” 27 (1995), no. 1, p. 11–21. Cunningham, David S., Rhetoric, [in:] Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, ed. A.K.M. Adam, St. Louis 2000, p. 220–226. Davids, Peter H., James and Jesus, [in:] Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, ed. David Wenham, Sheffield 1985, p. 63–84. Deppe, Dean B., The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James, Chelsea 1989. Doering, Lutz, Ancient Jewish Letter and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament), Tübingen 2012. Dunbar, David G., The Biblical Canon, [in:] Hermeneutics, authority and Canon, ed. D.A. Carson, John D. Woodbridge, Grand Rapids 1986, p. 299–362. Edgar, David H., Has God not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James (JSNTSup 206), Sheffield 2001. Elliott, John H., The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective: HolinessWholeness and Patterns of Replication, “Biblical Theology Bulletin” 23 (1993), p. 71–81. Finegan, Jack, Light from the Ancient Past. The Archeological Background of the HebrewChristian Religion, vol. 1, Princeton, NJ 2015. Fiorello, Michael D., The Ethical Implication of Holiness in James 2, JETS 55 (2012) no 3, p. 557–572. Foster, Robert James, The Significance of Exemplars for the Interpretation of the Letter of James, Tübingen 2014. Gajewski, Wojciech, Charyzmat, urząd, hierarchia, Kraków 2010. Gammie, John Glenn, Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre, “Semeia” 50 (1990), p. 41–77. Głowiński, Michał, Mowa: cytaty i aluzje, [in:] Głowiński Michał, Narracje literackie i nieliterackie, Kraków 1997, p. 281–291. Głowiński, Michał, Odbiór, konotacje, styl, [in:] Głowiński Michał, Dzieło wobec odbiorcy. Szkice z komunikacji literackiej, Kraków 1998, p. 110–135. Głowiński, Michał, Wirtualny odbiorca w strukturze utworu poetyckiego, [in:] Poetyka. Wybór materiałów, ed. Anna Kubale, Ewa Nawrocka, Gdańsk 1997, p. 73–104. Gnilka, Joachim, Piotr i Rzym, transl. Wiesław Szymona, Kraków 2002.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Studies

Gordon, Robert P., Kai to telos kyriou eidete (Jas V,11), JTS 26 (1975), p. 91–95. Grant, Robert M., The Formation of the New Testament, New York 1965. Guthrie, George H., New Testament Exegesis of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles, [in:] A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Boston–Leiden 2002, p. 591–553. Hartin, Patrick J., James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSup 47), Sheffield 1991. Hartin, Patrick J., James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth, Collegeville 2004. Hartmann, Gerhard, Der Aufbau des Jakobusbriefes, „Zeitschrift für katholischen Theologie” 66 (1942), pp. 63–70. Hengel, Martin, Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik, [in:] Tradition and Interpretation, ed. Otto Betz, Gerald F. Hawthorne, Grand Rapids 1987, p. 248–278. Hengel Martin, Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik, [in:] Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III (Wissenschaftlische Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament), ed. Martin Hengel, Tübingen 2002, p. 511–548. Hengel, Martin, The Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ, Eugene 2003. Jackson-McCabe, Matt A., Logos and Law in the Letter of James. The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, the Law of Freedom, Leiden–Boston–Köln 2001. Jackson-McCabe, Matt, The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James, JBL 122 (2003), no. 4, p. 701–730. Jędrzejewski, Sylwester, Judaizm diaspory w okresie Drugiej Świątyni, “Seminare” 27 (2010), p. 9–27. Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Mirror of Remembrance (James 1:22–25), CBQ 50 (1988), p. 632–645. Johnson, Luke Timothy, Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James, JBL 101 (1982), no. 3, p. 391–401. Kapera, Zdzisław J., Wprowadzenie do problematyki badań nad tzw. ossuarium Jakuba, syna Józefa, brata Jezusa, [in:] Ossuarium Jakuba, brata Jezusa. Odkrycie, które podzieliło uczonych, ed. Zdzisław J. Kapera, Kraków 2003, p. 39–51. Karrer, Martin, Das Urchristliche Alte Testament, „Novum Testamentum” 32 (1990), p. 152–188. Katechizm Kościoła Katolickiego, Poznań 1994. Katolicko-luterańska deklaracja na zakończenie obchodów jubileuszu reformacji, http:// gosc.pl/doc/4285884.Katolicko-luteranska-deklaracja-na-zakonczenie-obchodow [accessed: 30.03.2017]. Klauck, Hans-Josef, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis, Waco 2006. Klein, Martin, Ein vollkommenes Werk: vollkommenheit, Gesetz and Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes, Stuttgart 1995. Kloppenborg, John S., Webb, Robert L., Reading James with New Eyes: An Introduction, [in:] Reading James with New Eyes, ed. Robert L. Webb, John S. Kloppenborg, New York 2007, p. 1–5.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

295

296

Bibliography

Knox, Wilfred Lawrance, The Epistle of James, JTS 46 (1945), p. 10–17. Konradt, Matthias, Christlische Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen and ethischen Konzeption (Studien zum Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 22), Göttingen 1998. Korolko, Mirosław, Sztuka retoryki, Warszawa 1990. Krabbendam, Henry, The Epistle of James. Tender Love in Tough Pursuit of Total Holiness. Commentary, vol. 1, Bonn 2006. Kümmel, Werner G., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg 1980. Langkammer, Hugolin, Jezus Chrystus w świetle późniejszych pism Nowego Testamentu, Wrocław 2009. Lappenga, Benjamin, James 3:13–4:10 and the Language of Envy in Proverbs 3, JBL 136 (2017), no. 4, p. 989–1006. Léon-Dufour, Xavier, Chrystofanie, in: Słownik teologii biblijnej, ed. Xavier Léon-Dufour, transl. Kazimierz Romaniuk, Poznań–Warszawa 1973, p. 128. Link, Hannelore, Rezeptionsforschung: Eine Einführung in Methoden und Probleme, Stuttgart 1980. Lockett, Darian R., Letters from the Pilar Apostles of the Catholic Epistles as Canonical Collection, Eugene 2017. Ludwig, Martina, Wort als Gesetz: Eine Untersuchung zum Verständnis von ‘Wort’ and ‘Gesetz’ in israelitisch-frühjüdischen und neutestamentlischen Schriften: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes, Frankfurt 1994. Luther, Martin, 95 Tez, http://www.luteranie.pl/materialy/inne_pisma_lutra/95_tez,239.html [accessed: 31.12.2017]. Luther, Martin, Prefaces to the Books of the Bible, Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude 1545 (1522), http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm [accessed: 11.03.2019]. Luther, Martin, Prefaces to the Books of the Bible, http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/ NEW1luther_b7.htm [accessed: 15.08.2019]. Luther, Martin, Przedmowa do Listu św. Pawła do Rzymian, [in:] Przedmowy do ksiąg biblijnych, transl. Jerzy Krzyszpień, Warszawa 1992, p. 54–72. Luther, Martin, Introduction to the Old Testament (1523), http://www.godrules.net/library/ luther/NEW1luther_f8.htm [accessed: 05.08.2019]. Luther, Martin, Przedmowa do Starego Testamentu (1522), [in:] Przedmowy do ksiąg biblijnych, transl. Jerzy Krzyszpień, Warszawa 1992, p. 3–22. Luther, Martin, The Large Catechism, http://storage.cloversites.com/redhilllutheranchurch/ documents/LARGE_CATECHISM.pdf [accessed: 20.07.2019]. Markiewicz, Henryk, Autor i narrator, [in:] Markiewicz Henryk, Wymiary dzieła literackiego, Kraków 1996, p. 89–111. Melanchton, Filip, Wyznanie augsburskie (Konfesja augsburska) z 1530 roku, transl. Janusz Włodzimierz Jackowski, [in:] Księgi Wyznaniowe Kościoła Luterańskiego, Bielsko-Biała 2011, p. 143–163.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Studies

Melchior-Bonnet, Sabine, Narzędzie magii. Historia luster i zwierciadeł, transl. Barbara Walicka, Warszawa 2007. Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance, Oxford 1987. Mongstad-Kvammen, Ingeborg, Toward a Postcolonial Reading of the Epistle of James. James 2,1–13 in its Roman Imperial Context, London–Boston 2013. Neitzel, Heinz, Eine alte crux interpretum im Jakobusbrief 2,18, ZNW 73 (1982), p. 286–293. Neusner, Jacob, Introduction: What Is a Judaism, [in:] The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, ed. Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner, Louisville 2001, p. 1–9. Niebuhr, Karl Wilhelm, Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe, NTS 44 (1998), p. 420–443. Nienhuis, David, Wall, Robert W., Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude as Scripture: The Shaping of a Canonical Collection, Grand Rapids 2013. Okopień-Sławińska, Aleksandra, Relacje osobowe w literackiej komunikacji, [in:] Problemy socjologii literatury, ed. Janusz Sławiński, Wrocław 1971, p. 109–125. Painter, John, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, Columbia 2004. Penner, Todd C., The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter (JSNTSup 121), Sheffield 1996. Penner, Todd C., The Epistle of James in Current Research, “Currents in Research” 7 (1999), p. 257–308. Perkins, David, The Wisdom We Need. James 1,5–8; 3,13–18, “The Theological Educator” 34 (1986), p. 17–25. Popkes, Wiard, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbrief, Stuttgart 1986. The Postmodern Bible Reader, ed. David Jobling, Tina Pippin, Ronald Schleifer, Oxford–Malden 2001. Rendal, Gerald H., The Epistle of St. James and Judaic Christianity, Cambridge 1927. Reuss, Eduard, History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Church, Edinburgh 1884. Rosik, Mariusz, Church and Synagogue (30-313 AD). Parting of the Ways, Berlin 2019. Rosik, Mariusz, Kościół a Synagoga (30-313 po Chr.). Na rozdrożu, Wrocław 2016. Second Vatican Council, Sobór Watykański II: Konstytucje, Dekrety, Deklaracje, Poznań 1968. Stanzel, Franz, Theorie des Erzählens, Göttingen 1967. Suhl, Alfred, Paulus und seine Briefe. Ein Beitrag zur pauliniscjen Chronologie (Studien zum Neuen Testament 11), Gütersloh 1975. Uglorz, Manfred, Życie według prawa wolności w rozumieniu św. Jakuba, Warszawa 2012. Taylor, Mark E., Recent Scholarship on the Structure of James, “Currents in Biblical Research” 3.1 (2004), p. 86–116. Taylor, Mark E., Guthrie George H., The Structure of James, CBQ 68 (2000), p. 681–705. Trocmé, Étienne, Pierwsze kroki chrześcijaństwa, transl. Joanna Gorecka-Kalita, Kraków 2004. Wachob, Wesley Hiram, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James, Cambridge 2000.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

297

298

Bibliography

Ward, Roy Bowen, Partiality in the Assembly: James 2:2–4, “Harvard Theological Review” 62 (1969), p. 89–95. Warden, Duane, The Rich and Poor in James: Implications for Institutionalized Partiality, JETS 43 (2000) 2, p. 247–257. Warrington, Keith, James 5:14–18: Healing Then and Now, “International Review of Mission” 93 (2004), p. 346–367. Watson, Duane, James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes and Argumentation, NTS 39 (1993), p. 94–129. Whitlark, Jason A., ἔμφυτος λογός. A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James, “Horizons in Biblical Theology” 32 (2010), p. 144–165. Winbery, Carlton L., The Attitude Toward Wealth in the Letter of James, “Theological Educator” 34 (1986), p. 26–34. Windisch, Hans, Die Christophanie vor Damascus und ihre religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen, ZNW 31 (1932), pp. 1–23. Wróbel, Mirosław, Jakub, syn Józefa, brat Jezusa, [in:] Ossuarium Jakuba, brata Jezusa. Odkrycie, które podzieliło uczonych, ed. Zdzisław J. Kapera, Kraków 2003, p. 135–140. Wspólna deklaracja o usprawiedliwieniu, http://www.magazyn.ekumenizm.pl/content/article/20030114163017308.htm [accessed: 30.03.2018]. Żywica, Zdzisław, Wiara i moralność wczesnych Kościołów chrześcijańskich w świetle Listu Jakuba, “Studia Warmińskie” 38 (2001), p. 59–69.

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Indexes

Index of persons

A Abraham 21, 23, 29, 50, 59, 63, 74, 79, 81, 91, 115, 145, 185, 187, 188, 191–199, 212, 213, 228, 230, 252, 254 Adam, A.K.M 13, 294 Adamczewski, Bartosz 27, 236, 293 Adamson, James B. 12, 193, 238, 293 Aland, Barbara 287 Aland, Kurt 291, 292 Albl, Martin C. 219, 223, 225, 293 Allison, Dale C. 21, 24, 208, 292, 293 Alphaeus 28, 81, 82, 84–86 Amphoux, Christian-Bernard 50, 293 Apollonius 30 Aristion 220 Aune, David E. 110, 292 B Baasland, Ernst 53, 54, 58, 75, 293 Backer, William R. 12, 293 Batten, Alicja J. 74, 244, 259, 293 Bauckham, Richard 12, 27, 58, 60–62, 70, 71, 73, 88, 90–92, 94, 125, 292, 293 Bente, Friedrich 226, 294 Betz, Otto 12, 295 Bolewski, Włodzimierz 63, 293 Botterweck, Gerhard Johannes 110, 292 Bream, Julian 15 Bromiley, Geoffrey W. 130, 292 Burkitt, Francis Crawford 44, 293 C Cajetan, Thomas 11, 26 Calvin, John 28

Cargal, Timothy B. 15, 55, 56, 82, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 115, 116, 118, 125, 127, 128, 132, 134, 139, 140, 144, 150, 159, 161–163, 172–174, 180, 183, 186, 195, 199, 213, 216, 218, 227, 267, 268, 272, 275, 276, 280, 293 Carpenter, Craig B. 248–252, 293 Carson, D.A. 23, 294 Charles, Robert H. 201, 209, 257, 288, 289 Cheung, Luke L. 106, 294 Chilton, Bruce 37, 294, 297 Cicero 206 Ciecieląg, Jerzy 30, 294 Claudius, emperor 39 Clement of Alexandria 20, 30, 35, 40 Clement of Rome 20 Cleopas 28, 32, 33 Cleveland Coxe, Arthur 288, 290 Craigie, W.A. 289 Crombie, Frederick 290 Crotty, Robert 235, 256, 294 Cunningham, David S. 13, 294 Cushman McGiffert, Arthur 290

D Dąbrowski, Eugeniusz 290 Dau, William Herman Theodore 226, 294 Davids, Peter H. 12, 14, 19, 52, 53, 100, 116, 134, 144, 150, 171, 178, 180, 183, 193, 195, 203, 210, 222, 225, 227, 229, 238, 239, 249, 251, 252, 259, 275, 282, 292, 294 Deppe, Dean B. 88, 294

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

300

Indexes

Dibelius, Martin 14, 42, 43, 74, 133, 204, 212, 292 Donaldson, James 221, 288–290 Dowland, John 15 Dunbar, David G. 23, 294 E Edgar, David H. 100, 101, 105, 294 Elliger, Karl 287 Elliott, John H. 12, 294 Even-Shoshan, Abraham 291 F Finegan, Jack 59, 294 Fiorello, Michael D. 237, 245, 247, 294 Foster, Robert James 83, 294 Frankemöller, Hubert 13, 292 Frierdrich, Gerhard 130, 292 G Gajewski, Wojciech 29, 30, 219, 223, 294 Gammie, John Glenn 75, 294 Geden, Alfred Shenington 291 Głowiński, Michał 21, 62, 78, 291, 294 Gnilka, Joachim 31, 294 Gordon, Robert P. 151, 295 Gorecka-Kalita, Joanna 41, 297 Grant, Robert M. 24, 295 Gundry, Robert H. 85, 292 Guthrie, George H. 14–16, 54, 295, 297 H Haase, Wolfgang 53, 293 Hartin, Patrick J. 12, 42, 43, 59, 61, 71, 74, 81, 283, 295 Hartmann, Gerhard 82, 295 Hatch, Edwin 291 Hawthorne, Gerald F. 12, 295 Hedrick, Charles W. 34, 288 Hengel, Martin 12, 42, 43, 46, 295 Holofernes 214 Hoole, Charles H. 226, 289

Horst, Pieter Willem van der Huck, Albert 292 I Isidore of Seville

291

33, 81

J Jackowski, Janusz Włodzimierz 296 Jackson-McCabe, Matt A. 11, 243, 244, 256, 285, 295 James, Montague Rhode 35, 288 Jędrzejewski, Sylwester 58, 91, 92, 295 Jehoiada 142 Jeremiah 142 Jesus Christ 12, 24, 25, 27–29, 31–43, 45, 58, 59, 61, 70–73, 76, 80–86, 88, 89, 91–94, 96, 109, 112, 140, 147, 158, 160, 171, 179, 197, 214, 215, 217, 220–224, 232, 234, 237–240, 243–247, 256, 258, 270, 275, 276, 282, 293–295, 297 Joachimowicz, Leon 290 Job 50, 63, 74, 79, 136, 138, 149–151, 218, 275 Jobling, David 13, 297 John Mark 30 John the Apostle 24, 29–31, 33–35, 38, 81, 220 John the Presbyter 220 Johnson Goodspeed, Edgar 291 Johnson, Luke Timothy 13, 56, 159, 164, 181, 248, 249, 251, 274, 275, 292, 295 Joshua 197 Jude the Apostle 28, 32 Judith 214 K Kalinkowski, Stanisław 290 Kapera, Zdzisław J. 30, 32, 294, 295, 298 Karrer, Martin 219, 295 Kittel, Gerhard 130, 292 Klauck, Hans-Josef 60, 295 Klein, Martin 12, 295

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of persons

Kloppenborg, John S. 13, 295 Knight, Kevin 288–290 Knox, Wilfred Lawrance 44, 296 Konradt, Matthias 12, 139, 140, 296 Korolko, Mirosław 54, 296 Kostkiewiczowa, Teresa 62, 291 Kozyra, Józef 42, 43, 51, 106, 114, 132, 140, 142, 172, 179, 195, 199, 204, 211, 268, 270, 292 Krabbendam, Henry 50, 100, 103, 105, 109, 114, 279, 280, 296 Krokiewicz, Adam 60, 291 Krońska, Irena 290 Krzyszpień, Jerzy 296 Kubale, Anna 78, 294 Kubiak, Zygmunt 290 Kümmel, Werner G. 42, 43, 296 Kupis, Bogdan 290

L Langkammer, Hugolin 71, 293, 296 Lappenga, Benjamin 249, 251, 296 Laws, Sophie 13, 28, 56, 85, 101, 102, 106, 109, 113–116, 118, 128, 131–134, 139, 140, 142, 144–147, 150, 151, 157, 160, 162, 163, 174, 178, 180, 196, 197, 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 212, 214, 216, 221, 223, 225, 227–229, 233, 239, 240, 244–246, 250–252, 254, 256–258, 261, 268, 275, 276, 279, 280, 282, 292 Layton, Bentley 36, 288 Léon-Dufour, Xavier 34, 292, 296 Leśniak, Kazimierz 290 Lightfoot, Joseph Barber 150, 178, 199, 208, 289, 290 Link, Hannelore 79, 296 Lockett, Darian R. 20, 296 Ludwig, Martina 12, 296

M Manteuffel, Jerzy 59, 291 Markiewicz, Henryk 76, 296 Mary Magdalene 160 Mary, mother of James 28, 81 Mary, mother of Jesus 28, 32–34 Mary, mother of John Mark 30 Mary, wife of Cleopas 32 Mastema 115 Matthew the Apostle 220 McCartney, Dan G. 19, 45, 46, 48–50, 58, 63, 69, 72, 75, 88, 89, 292 McKnight, Scot 13, 39, 50, 71, 83–86, 93, 110, 111, 125, 128, 131, 134, 138–141, 144, 145, 148, 149, 151, 154, 156, 158, 159, 161, 164, 174, 176, 178–180, 182, 196, 199–204, 206, 207, 209, 211, 215, 223, 224, 228, 238–241, 243–247, 249, 252–254, 256, 258, 267, 268, 270, 271, 275, 276, 280, 281, 292 Melanchton, Philip 226, 296 Melchior-Bonnet, Sabine 49, 297 Meleager of Gadara 50 Menzies, Allan 289 Merk, August 287 Metzger, Bruce M. 25, 26, 297 Mnezjergos 59, 290 Mongstad-Kvammen, Ingeborg 15, 41–43, 56, 297 Moo, Douglas J. 13, 20, 39, 42, 43, 56, 58, 75, 85, 91, 93, 100, 102, 133, 150, 151, 160, 161, 165, 170–172, 176, 178, 182, 186, 187, 189, 201, 202, 205, 208, 211, 212, 214, 218, 224, 225, 235–239, 243, 245, 246, 248, 250–253, 255–258, 266, 268, 270, 272, 273, 275, 276, 279, 280, 282, 292 Morgenthaler, Robert 291 Moulton, William F. 291 Muchowski, Piotr 291

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

301

302

Indexes

Mussner, Franz 42, 58, 292 Myszor, Wincenty 33, 37, 41, 288 N Nawrocka, Ewa 78, 294 Neitzel, Heinz 171, 297 Nestle, Erwin 287 Neusner, Jacob 37, 93, 294, 297 Niebuhr, Karl Wilhelm 61, 297 Nienhuis, David R. 20, 21, 297 Nystrom, David P. 52, 292 O Okopień-Sławińska, Aleksandra 62, 77, 291, 297 P Paciorek, Antoni 288, 289 Painter, John 12, 28, 37, 39, 297 Papias of Hierapolis 19, 220 Paul, the Apostle 11, 12, 20, 24–31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 42–44, 49, 58, 59, 84, 89, 91, 94, 95, 134, 139, 171, 195, 285, 294 Penner, Todd C. 13, 297 Perkins, David 280, 297 Peter, the Apostle 24, 26, 29–31, 35, 37–39, 61, 220, 282, 294 Phillips, George 288 Philodemus of Gadara 50 Pippin, Tina 13, 297 Popkes, Wiard 44, 88, 292, 297 Popowski, Remigiusz 287 Porter, Stanley E. 15, 295 Protonike, queen 39 Pseudo-Phocylides 58, 291 Pullan, L. 290 R Radożycki, Jan 290, 291 Rahab 21, 50, 63, 74, 79, 89, 185, 187, 188, 191–194, 197–199, 212, 213, 228, 230

Ralph, Martin P. 13, 144, 150, 151, 162, 164, 179, 183, 195, 203, 280, 292 Ralphs, Alfred 287 Redpath, Henry Adeney 291 Reicke, Bo 44, 219, 281, 293 Rendal, Gerald H. 50, 83, 84, 205, 297 Reuss, Eduard 26, 297 Ringgren, Helmer 110, 292 Roberts, Alexander 221, 288–290 Romaniuk, Kazimierz 35, 292, 296 Ropes, James Hardy 14, 45, 51, 73, 75, 85, 171, 189, 280, 293 Rosik, Mariusz 32, 34, 293, 297 Rubinkiewicz, Ryszard 288, 289 Rudolph, Wilhelm 287 S Salome 33 Schaff, Philip 29, 38, 289, 290 Schleifer, Ronald 13, 297 Schnayder, Jerzy 59, 60, 290, 291 Schoedel, William R. 33, 288 Sławiński, Janusz 77, 297 Stanzel, Franz Karl 77, 297 Suhl, Alfred 30, 297 Szymona, Wiesław 31, 294 T Taylor, Mark E. 15, 16, 52, 54, 56, 297 Temporini, Hildegard 53, 293 Theodorus of Gadara 50 Tiberius 50 Trocmé, Étienne 41, 95, 297 U Uglorz, Manfred V Vio, Thomas de

157, 297

s. Cajetan, Thomas

W Wace, Henry 290 Wachob, Wesley Hiram

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

25, 297

Index of persons

Walicka, Barbara 49, 297 Walker, Alexander 288 Wall, Robert W. 13, 20, 21, 293, 297 Ward, Roy Bowen 240, 242, 298 Warden, Duane 235, 236, 298 Warrington, Keith 219, 223, 224, 298 Watson, Duane F. 13, 73, 298 Watson, E.W. 290 Webb, Robert L. 13, 295 Weber, Robert 287 Wenham, David 12, 294 Whitlark, Jason A. 140, 298 Williams, Francis E. 44, 288 Winbery, Carlton L. 236, 298

Windisch, Hans 35, 298 Witakowski, Witold 24, 289 Witt Burton, Ernest de 291 Wittlieb, Marian 289 Witwicki, Władysław 291 Wojciechowski, Michał 287 Woodbridge, John D. 23, 294 Woźniak, Jerzy 288 Wróbel, Mirosław S. 32, 293, 298 Z Zebedee 19, 24, 25, 30, 33, 81, 82, 84–86 Zechariah 142 Żywica, Zdzisław 239, 298

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

303

304

Indexes

Index of references Bible Genesis 206 – 1:3–4 104 – 1:14–18 104 – 1:20–21 206 – 1:24–25 206 – 1:26 105, 206, 209 – 1:26–27 161 – 1:27 105 – 1:28 48 – 1:28–30 206 – 2:7 175, 249 – 2:8–9 118 – 2:16 118 – 2:19–20 206 – 3:6 117, 131 – 3:6a 118 – 3:12–13 116 – 3:19 117 – 4:10 176 – 6:5 249 – 6:9 191 – 6:17 175 – 7:15 175 – 9:4 31 – 15:6 63, 196, 197, 252 – 18:22–23 145 – 18:25 274 – 19:17 141 – 19:28 255, 258 – 22:1 194 – 22:1–12 252 – 22:2 194 – 22:9 194 – 22:13 194 – 22:16–18 196

 Exodus – 2:23 176 – 2:23–24 275 – 6:5 275 – 12:3 240 – 12:47 240 – 13:2 106 – 13:12 106 – 13:15 106 – 15:22–25 48 – 16:1 240 – 16:2 240 – 16:9 240 – 16:10 240 – 17:1 240 – 19:22 145 – 20:5 251 – 20:6 113, 244 – 20:13–14 63, 164 – 22:10–12 276 – 22:28 106 – 23:19 106 – 24:1–2 145 – 24:3 158 – 24:12 274 – 24:12–18 145 – 29:4 146 – 30:18–21 146 – 34:6 143 – 34:14 251 – 40:12 146 – 40:15 223 – 49 82    

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

Leviticus 70 – 2.4.5 222 – 2:12 106 – 4:14 240 – 4:15 240 – 8:3 240 – 8:4 240 – 15:5–8 146 – 16:4 146 – 17:10–14 31 – 17–18 70 – 18:5 158 – 18:6–26 31 – 19 54, 164, 274, 295 – 19:10 70 – 19:12 70, 276 – 19:13 70, 176 – 19:15 63, 70, 239, 243 – 19:15–18 247 – 19:15–18a 247 – 19:16 70 – 19:18 63, 246 – 19:18b 247 – 20:23–26 37 – 26:14–39 209 – 26–27 246   Numeri – 3:3 223 – 5:57 226 – 6:2–8 37 – 8:20 240 – 12:1–8 273 – 12:9–15 273 – 15:20–21 106 – 20:17 246 – 21:5 272 – 25:11 251 – 25:11–13 270 – 34:3 210

– 34:12

210

  Deuteronomy 110 – 1:13 280 – 1:15 280 – 3:17 210 – 3:24 84 – 4:6 280 – 4:13 157 – 4:23 161 – 4:24 251 – 4:37–38 244 – 5:1 157 – 5:10 113, 244 – 5:11 276 – 5:17 164 – 5:17–18 63 – 5:32 157 – 6 54 – 6:1 157 – 6:3–5 243 – 6:4 267 – 6:5 113 – 6:12 161 – 6:13 276 – 6:25 127, 157 – 7:7–8 244 – 7:9 113 – 7:25 200 – 10:17–18 239 – 11:14 216 – 14:2 244 – 18:4 106 – 22:5 241 – 24:14–15 176 – 26:2 106 – 26:10 106 – 26:13 161 – 27:19 120 – 27:26 158

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

305

306

Indexes

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

28 110, 118, 246 28:1–14 110, 112 28:10 245 28:15 224 28:15–17 110 28:15–68 209 28:21–22 224 28:27–29 224 30:3 227 30:15–16 112 30:15–20 110, 118 30:19 208 30:19b–20 112 32:39 274 33 82

  Joshua – 2:9–10 194 – 2:9–11 198 – 2:10 198 – 2:11 194, 198 – 6:25b 198 – 7:7 84 – 13:14 90 – 13:33 90 – 13–19 89 – 14:4 90 – 16–17 90 – 18:7 90   Judges – 9:4 174 – 11:4 174 – 18:6 173 – 20:1 240 – 21:3 84

– – – – – – – – –

2:6 274 3:10 83 4:2–3 200 4:10 200 7:10 200 9:16 176 16:16 218 20:42 173 26:23 127

  2 Samuel (2 Kings) – 7:28 106 – 10:19 200 – 24:1 115   1 Kings (3 Kings) – 3:9 243 – 3:9–11 100 – 8:31–33 276 – 8:33 200 – 8:52 83 – 10:18 191 – 17:1 228, 229 – 17:17–24 228 – 17–18 228 – 18:1 228, 229 – 18:25–39 228 – 19:9–13 145 – 19:10 270 – 19:14 270   2 Kings (4 Kings) – 19:28 201 – 23:10 206

  1 Samuel (1 Kings) – 1:17 173

  1 Chronicles – 12:33 102 – 29:10 209

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

2 Chronicles – 2:11 280 – 6:14 84 – 6:16–17 84 – 6:19 84 – 6:40–42 84 – 19:24 90 – 20:7 196 – 21:1 115 – 30:1 90 – 36:16 142   Nehemiah – 1:5 84 – 9:20 177 – 9:25 177   Tobit 58, 82 – 1:1 90 – 4:5–19 75 – 6:7–9 145 – 8:2–3 145 – 12:6–10 75   Judith – 8:2 90 – 10:18 214   1 Maccabees – 2:52 187, 196 – 2:54 270 – 2:58 270 – 7:12 240 – 8:15 251

   

2 Maccabees 81, 87 – 1:1 61, 87, 89 – 1:2–5 59 – 1:9b 62 – 1:10 87 – 1:27 91 – 1–2 60 – 4:12 241 – 6:12–17 190 – 8:12 214 – 8:15 245 – 15:21 214   Job – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

115, 149 1:9–12 115, 151 2:6 115 4:17 200 5:11 148 5:17 109 7:7 255 7:9 255 7:16 255 10:1 224 13:28 258 14:19 150 15:30 237 16:7 258 24:12 275 24:24 237 28:28 69 31:38 176 33:18 141 42:10–17 151

  Psalms – 1:1 – 1:2 – 3:8 – 7:2

109 162 84 84

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

307

308

Indexes

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7:4 84 7:9 195 7:12 274 7:18 218 8:2 84 8:4 104 9:12 218 9:19 244 10[9]:2[23] 253 10[9]:12[33] 84 12:3 46, 102 12[11]:7 191 13[12]:4 84 17[16]:6 176 17[16]:10 253 17[16]:21 195 18[17]:3 111 18[17]:7 176 18[17]:21 127 18[17]:25 127 18[17]:28 244, 253 19:12 226 19:13 226 19[18]:8 162 19[18]:13 200 24[23]:4 146 24[23]:8 238 24[23]:10 238 29[28]:3 238 30[29]:13 84 31[30]:2–4 111 31[30]:19 253 33[32]:6 106 34[33]:18–19 253 38[37]:6 258 39[38]:2 200 39[38]:5–6 255 39[38]:8 111 42[41]:2 250, 252 51[50]:3 226 51[50]:6 274

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

51[50]:13 175 51[50]:19 253 58[57]:5 208 59[58]:6 84 64[63]:4 208 68[67]:6 120 69[68]:30 241 70[69]:2 84 71[70]:5 111 71[70]:7 111 72[71]:4 253 74[73]:2 240 75[74]:8 274 80[79]:5 84 80[79]:20 84 82[81]:1 240 83[82]:3 252 83[82]:15 203 88[87]:2 84 101[100]:5 272 103[102]:8 143 103[102]:8–9 251 103[102]:15–17 236 106[105]:47 84 107[106]:20 106 111[110]:1 240 111[110]:4 143 111[110]:10 69 114[113]:18 145 118[117]:20 252 119:43 106 119[118]:16 161 119[118]:51 253 119[118]:69 253 119[118]:78 253 120[119]:3–4 203 136[135]:7–9 104 138[137]:6 253 140[139]:4 208 141[140]:3 200 145[144]: 143

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

Proverbs 58, 63–65, 68, 69, 93, 204 – 1:7 68 – 1:29–30 68 – 1:33 68 – 2:1 68 – 2:5 68 – 2:6 68, 100 – 2:9 127 – 2:18 183 – 3 249, 296 – 3:7 68 – 3:9 212 – 3:17 125 – 3:17–18 68 – 3:22 68 – 3:28 172 – 3:34 22, 64, 148, 236, 252 – 3:34b 54 – 4:7–10 54 – 4:9 112 – 4:12 68 – 4:24 68 – 5:3–5 117 – 5:4 210 – 5:14 240 – 6:12 68 – 6:17–19 68 – 7 117 – 7:22 117 – 7:23 117 – 8:13 68 – 8:22–23 68 – 8:34 109 – 8:35 100 – 9:10 68, 69 – 10:2 127, 195 – 10:3 68 – 10:9 101 – 10:11 210 – 10:11–12 68 – 10:18 204

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

10:18–19 68 10:19 125, 200 10:23a 147 10:31–32 68 11:2 282 11:2b 68 11:4 127 11:9a 68 11:13a 68 11:21 68 11:30 212 12:2 68 12:6a 68 12:13a 68 12:15 125 12:17b–18a 68 12:18 200, 204 12:19 204 12:22a 68 13:3 200 13:3a 68 13:10 68 13:14 183 14:3a 68 14:12 183 14:21 68, 110, 244 14:26–27 68 14:31 68 14:34 127 15:1 68 15:4b 68 15:18 68 16:20 110 16:27 203 16:27–28 68 16:32 125 17:1 130 17:4 68 17:19a 68 17:20b 68 17:27 126

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

309

310

Indexes

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

18:6 68 18:13 204 18:20–21 68 18:21 200, 209 19:20 125 19:23 68 19:28 68 20:9 200 20:23 254 22:9 68 22:22 68, 244 22:23 68 25:21 68 26:21 203 26:28 68, 207 27:1 68, 254 27:21 191 28:5 68 28:7 68 28:9 68, 125 28:13 226 28:14 110 28:27 68 29:7 68 29:18 110 29:23 68

  Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) – 7:9 125, 126   Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira) 58, 63, 65–68, 93, 147, 180, 192 – 1:1 66, 100 – 1:9 66 – 1:10 113 – 1:11 112 – 1:14 66 – 1:16 66 – 1:18 66

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1:20 66 1:25 67 1:26 66, 69 1:28 66, 102 1:30 66 2:1–5 66 2:1–6 189, 191, 192 2:5 191 2:6 66 2:7–10 66 2:11 143 2:15 66 2:16–17 66 2:18 66 3:9 67 3:11 67 3:17 282 3:18 66 3:24 66 3:26–29 67 3:28–29 66 3:30–31 66 4:1–5 67 4:7 240 4:8 282 4:8–10 67 4:14 66 4:21 67 4:27 67 4:29 67 4:31 67 5:1–3 67 5:3 127 5:5–6 66 5:8 67 5:9 67 5:11 125 5:13–14 67 6:8–10 67 6:19 67 6:31 112

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6:37 66 7:2 67 7:10 67 7:11 66 7:12–13 67 7:32–35 67 9:14a 67 10:7a 66 10:13 66 10:22 237 10:23a 67 10:28 282 10:31 67 11:1 66 11:2b 67 11:4 67 11:7 67 11:14 67 11:18–19 67 12:4 67 12:5a 67 13:22–23 67 14:1 109 14:1–4 110 14:14 177 14:19 258 14:20–21 110 15:1 66 15:8 66 15:11–12 67 15:14 116 15:18 66 15:20 67 16:6 240 16:11–12 66 16:14 66 18:3–5 170 18:21 224 19:6–12 67 19:16 200 19:20 157

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

19:20a 66 19:20b 66 20:5–7 67, 125 20:18 67 20:24 67 20:26 67 21:5 67 21:9 240 21:11 66 22:27 67 23:1 209 23:4 209 23:7–8 67 23:8 253 23:9–11 67, 277 23:12–13 67 23:15 67 24:3 66 24:23–27 139 24:23–29 66 25:8 200 26:14a 67 26:25 67 27:1 67 27:4–5 67 27:13 147 27:15 67, 253 27:28 253 28:22–23 203 29:9 67 29:10 67, 258 29:25 210 31:1 67 31:5–6 67 31:5–11 236 31:8 237 31:10 191, 192 31:26 253 32:12 253 32:15 67 32:16 127

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

311

312

Indexes

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

32:17–18 67 33:1 66 33:2 67 33:2b 66 33:8–9 67, 104 33:12 67 33:14–15 67, 85 34:9–10 67 34:13–17 67 34:20–22 164 34:21–22 67, 180 35:12 274 35:12–24 67 35:14 120 36:25 275 37:4 67 37:12 200 37:16–18 67 37:24 110 38:10 146 38:15 224 39:1–2 66 39:6 66 41:18 240 42:24–25 67, 85 43:5–10 67, 104 43:26 106 44:16 142 44:17 191, 192 44:19–21 187 45:4 282 46:14 240 48:1–2 270 48:1–12 229 51:16 157 51:16–17 157 51:19 157 51:19–20 147

Wisdom of Solomon (Book of Wisdom) 58, 64–66 – 1:1 65, 101 – 1:2 65 – 1:3–6 65 – 1:11 272 – 1:12 182 – 1–5 66 – 2:4–5 65, 255 – 2:7–8 65 – 2:10–11 65 – 2:10–20 179, 180 – 2:12–18 65 – 2:12–20 151 – 2:17–20 180 – 2:18 151 – 2:19 65, 138 – 2:20 151 – 2:24 250 – 3:1 141 – 3:1–5 65 – 3:5–6 189, 191, 192 – 3:6 191 – 3:6–9 65 – 3:10–11 65 – 3:19 151 – 4:4 65 – 5:1–8 181, 182 – 5:6 181 – 5:8 65 – 5:9 65 – 5:10 65 – 5:13 255 – 5:14 65 – 5:15–16a 65 – 5:16 112 – 6 66 – 6:6 65 – 6:7 65 – 6:12–13 65 – 6:17–18 65

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6:17–19 146 6:19–21 65 6:23 65 6:24a 65 7:2 130 7:5–6 161 7:7 100 7:18–19 104 7:18–20 65 7:22–27 65 7:22–30 66 7:27 196 8 66 8:7 127 8:21 100 9:2–4 107 9:5 127 9:15 141 10:5 187 10–19 66, 187 12:10 140 12:18 138 14:28 276 14:28–30 277 15:3 127 15:9 224 16:20 130 16:20–21 131 18:15 106

  Isaiah – 1:2 141 – 1:15–16 146 – 1:17 127 – 3:11–24 256 – 3:14–15 179 – 5:9 176 – 5:21 280 – 6:1–8 145 – 6:3 176

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6:10 227, 280 7:12 243 9:11 127 9:18 203 10:5–15 127 11:11–12 90 13:6 257 14:31 257 15:2–3 257 16:7 257 23:1 257 23:6 257 23:14 257 26:13 84 29:19 241 30:25 178 30:27 258 30:27–33 127 30:28 201 30:30 258 33:22 274 34:2 178 34:6 178 37:29 201 40:6–8 236 41:8 196 43:7 245 46:13 (LXX) 128 51:2 194 53:2–11 179 53:5 227 54:5–6 248 54:8–10 127 54:11 (LXX) 103 54:11–12 36 56:2 162 57:3 164, 248 58:7 172 61:1 253 63:16 209 65:12 178

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

313

314

Indexes

– 65:14 – 66:11

257 177

Lamentations – 1:8 275 – 1:21 275

  Jeremiah – 1:6 84 – 3:18 90 – 3:20 248 – 4:8 146 – 4:10 84 – 4:14 146 – 5:7 164 – 5:14 258 – 5:24 216 – 7:25 82 – 7:31 206 – 9:22 269 – 9:23 269 – 12:3 178 – 13:14 250 – 13:27 164 – 15:3 178 – 19:4 206 – 20:1–6 256 – 20:7–9 142 – 22:13 176 – 23:5–6 179 – 25:15–38 127 – 28[35]:4 91 – 29 60–62, 81 – 29:1 87 – 29:4 61 – 31:8–14 90 – 31:31–34 37, 162 – 31[38]:33 157 – 48[31]:20 257 – 48[31]:31 257 – 50[27]:27 178

  Baruch – 1:1–2 87 – 2:1–10 70 – 2:12 70 – 2:14 69 – 2:18 69 – 2:29–30 70 – 2:30b 69 – 2:32 69 – 3:6–7 69 – 3:8 69, 70 – 3:9–12 69 – 3:13 69 – 3:14 69 – 3:17 69 – 3:32 69 – 3:32b 69 – 3:33 69 – 3:37 69 – 4:1 69 – 4:6–7 70 – 4:25 69 – 6 61, 62, 82, 87 – 6:1–73 60 – 6:23 258   Ezekiel – 3:21 184 – 4:14 161 – 5:10–12 127 – 15:7 258 – 16:3 161 – 16:4 161 – 16:38 248 – 16:49 178

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

17:9 258 20:4 142 21:6–7 275 21:15 178 21:17 257 22:7 245 23:43–44 164 23:45 248 24:6 258 24:11 258 24:12 258 33:31 158 37:15–28 83, 86 37:21–22 90, 96 37:25 96

  Daniel 82, 142 – 3:26 84 – 3:35 196 – 3:42 138 – 3:52 84 – 5:1 280 – 5:11 280 – 7:25 229 – 9:4 113 – 9:10 82 – 9:15 84 – 12:7 229 – 12:12 109

  Hosea – 2:4–7 248 – 2:5 161 – 2:7 164 – 4:10 164 – 6:3 216 – 13:3 255

Joel – – – –

1:2 243 1:10 257 2:12–13 146, 147 2:23 216

  Amos 142 – 1:2 141 – 1:3 141 – 1:12 258 – 1:14 258 – 2:6 179 – 2:7 235, 241 – 3:7 82 – 4:1 244 – 4:1–3 256 – 5:12 179 – 6:12 179 – 8:3 257 – 8:4–6 254 – 8:6 235 – 8:10 146 – 9:11–12 37   Obadiah – 10 178   Micah – 1:2 243 – 2:2 179 – 2:6–9 179 – 3:1–4 256 – 3:2 179 – 3:9–11 179 – 6:11 254   Habakkuk – 1:4 245

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

315

316

Indexes

Zephaniah – 3:11–12

253

  Zechariah – 1:3 145 – 1:6 82 – 1:14 251 – 2:12 238 – 7:9–10 171 – 8:2 251 – 8:17 276 – 9:9 179 – 10:1 216 – 10:6–12 90 – 11:2 257 – 11:4 178 – 11:7 178 – 11:13 191   Malachi – 3:5 – 3:7

177 145

  Matthew 12, 28, 32, 41, 46, 70–72 – 1:5 197 – 1:18 161 – 1:19 36 – 3:2 217 – 3:6 225 – 3:9 194 – 4:17 217 – 4:21–22 33 – 4:23 240 – 5:3 71, 109, 241, 244 – 5:4 109 – 5:5 139, 244 – 5:6 109 – 5:7 71, 169, 171 – 5:8 72

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

5:9 72, 213 5:10 142 5:10–12 109, 190 5:11–12 71 5:12 142 5:12b 72 5:17–19 71 5:17–20 158 5:18–19 163 5:20 195 5:21 164 5:21–22 133, 163 5:21–22a 127 5:21–30 71 5:21–31 164 5:22 72, 200, 206 5:23–24 227 5:27 164 5:33–37 72, 276 5:34–35 46 5:44–48 127 5:48 71, 158 5–7 70 6:2 240 6:5 240 6:9b 245 6:10 255 6:10b 224 6:12 227 6:13 111 6:16 258 6:17 223 6:19–20 72, 237 6:24 72 6:25–34 173 6:34 72, 254 7:1 275 7:1–2 72 7:7 71 7:11 71 7:12–27 158

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7:16b 72 7:22 223 7:24 71 7:24–26 159 7:26 71 7:26–28 158 8:8 227 8:13 227 8:29 268 9:3 245 9:6 224 9:35 240 10:2–4 33 10:3 28, 81 10:7 217 10:8 219 10:17 240 10:17–25 245 11:25 209, 225 11:29 282 12:34 201 12:36–37 125 13:4–8 140 13:14–17 84 13:15 227 13:18 243 13:18–23 140 13:24–30 215 13:35 81 13:36–43 215 13:42 258 13:52 159 13:54 240 13:54–56 32 13:55 28 15:10 243 15:19 243 15:28 227 16:3 220 18:9 206 18:12–13 182

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

18:15 72, 227, 247 18:21–35 214 19:13 222 19:28 91 20:3 175 20:6 175 20:20 33 20:26b–27 85 21:5 282 21:23 220 21:33 243 22:29 182 22:37–40 246 22:42–45 84 23:6 239, 240 23:6–7 242 23:7–8 199 23:12 72 23:16–22 276 23:29–34 142 23:37–40 247 23:39–41 142 24:5 182 24:6 131 24:11 182 24:24 182 24:33 72, 275 25:1 159 25:31–46 158 25:35–36 71, 172 25:36 219 25:38 172 25:39 219 25:42 172 26:42 255 26:57 220 26:65 245 27:18 250 27:28–29 246 27:39 245 27:56 81

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

317

318

Indexes

– 28:9–10 34 – 28:16–20 34 – 28:17–20 34   Mark 32 – 1:5 225 – 1:15 217 – 1:19–20 33, 81 – 1:24 268 – 1:31 224 – 1:39 240 – 1:40–44 223 – 2:1–12 224 – 2:7 245 – 3:16–19 33 – 3:17 81 – 3:18 28, 32, 81 – 3:28–29 245 – 3:29 163 – 5:29 227 – 6:2 240 – 6:3 28, 32, 81 – 6:13 222 – 6:23 276 – 6:56 219 – 9:35 234 – 9:47–48 258 – 10:19 164, 177 – 10:35 33 – 10:35–40 81 – 11:9–10 246 – 11:26 220 – 12:28–32 158, 247 – 12:39 239, 240 – 13:9–13 245 – 13:13 109 – 13:29 275 – 14:32–41 81 – 14:53 220 – 14:64 163

– – – – – – –

15:10 250 15:17–18 246 15:40 28, 32, 81 16:1 81, 223 16:9–20 34 16:12–18 34 16:17 223

  Luke 12, 59, 71 – 1:48 244 – 1:52–53 244 – 1:75 195 – 2:10 90 – 2:29 85 – 2:39 246 – 4:17–21 84 – 4:25 229 – 4:34 268 – 4:40 219 – 4:44 240 – 5:17 227 – 5:22 243 – 6 70 – 6:8 224 – 6:15 28, 81 – 6:16 81 – 6:18–19 227 – 6:20 71, 244 – 6:22 142 – 6:22–23 71 – 6:23b 72 – 6:24 72 – 6:25b 72 – 6:35–36 127 – 6:36 169 – 6:37a 275 – 6:47 71 – 6:47–49 158, 159 – 6:49 71 – 7:7 227

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7:25 178 7:38 223 7:46 223 8:13 139 8:33 142 8:47 227 8:55 175 9:2 227 9:11 227 9:42 227 9:46–47 243 10:9 217 10:11 217 10:17 223 10:21 225 10:25–28 247 10:34 222 11:9 71 11:13 71 11:49 142 12:11 245 12:15 255 12:20 255 12:33 259 14:4 227 14:31 131 16:19–21 241 17:3–4 227 17:15 227 18:9–14 266 18:20 164 19:27–38 246 20:1 220 20:23 160 21:20 216 22:30 91 22:51 227 23:37–38 246 23:46 175 24:1–49 34 24:10 81

– 24:13–50 34 – 24:38 243 – 24:49 236

  John – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

13, 26, 27, 34 1:12–13 105, 106 1:14 238 2:17 270 3:3–4 105 3:12 269 3:20 271 4:46 219 4:47 227 5:3 219 5:7 219 5:13 227 5:29 271 5:39 84 6:2 219 7:5 34 7:35 91 8:39 194 8:53 194 11:1–3 219 11:2 223 11:6 219 12:3 223 12:40 227 14:13–14 84 15:18–19 121 16:33 121 17:18 204 19:25 32 19:25–27 34 20:1–18 34 20:11–12 160 20:12–16 160 20:19–21:19 34 20:19–29 34

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

319

320

Indexes

– 20:29 109 – 21:4–22 34   Acts – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

20, 24, 27, 29–32, 34, 37, 39, 219, 221 1:3–9 34 1:13 28, 81 1:14 32 1:15–26 29 1:16 89 2:19 255 2:29 32, 89 2:30 276 2:31 84 2:34 84 2:36 83, 238 2:38 245 2:46 37 3:1 37 3:6 84, 223 3:7 224 3:14 179 3:17 32, 89 3:22–24 84 4:23 220 4:27 179 4:29 85 4:30 223 4:35–5:6 29 5:17 270 6:1–6 29 6:3 89 7:2 32, 89 7:52 142, 179 8:1 93 8:1–2 39 8:3 134 8:14 139 8:32–35 179 9:1–9 34 9:1–13 134

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

9:21 134 9:31 93 9:32–10:48 30 9:34 227 9:41 224 10:30 241 10:48 245 11:19 93 11:28b–30 219 11:29 93, 173 11:29–30 219 12:1–2 30, 81 12:17 29, 30, 81 13:15 32, 89, 243 13:26 32, 89 13:38 32, 89 13:45 270 14:15 266 15 31 15:2 37 15:6 37, 220 15:7 89 15:13 37, 81, 89, 243 15:13–21 30 15:13–29 29 15:15–18 37 15:19–20 70 15:22 37 15:22–23 220 15:22–29 39 15:23 39 15:23–29 60 15:24 39 15:29 39 16:17 85 16:18 223 17:1 240 17:11 139 17:17 240 18:4 240 18:7 240

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

18:18 224 18:21 255 18:26 240 19:5 245 19:18 225 21:14 255 21:18 81 21:18–19 29, 31 21:20 31 21:23 224 21:23–26 31, 37 22:1 32, 89, 243 22:4 134 22:6–11 34 22:14 179 22:19 134 23:1 32, 89 23:5 32, 89 23:6 32, 89 23:12–13 134 23:17 32, 89 24:1 220 24:17 173 26:6–7 93 26:7 91 26:10–11 134 26:12–18 34 27:22 217 27:25 217 28:27 227

  Corpus Paulinum 12, 20, 24, 26, 27, 34, 42, 44, 58, 89, 106, 282, 285   Romans 26, 28, 175 – 1:1 85 – 1:10 255 – 1:21 266 – 2:13 158

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2:14 139 2:27 246 3:16 257 3:24 128 4:1 194 4:1–6 21 4:16 187 4:19 160 5:6 219 5:16–17 128 6:19 219 7:8 174 7:21–23 134 9:8 106 9:11 271 10:2 270 11:1 90 11:18 268 12:4 134 12:9 261 13:8–10 164 13:9 164 13:13 270 14:1–2 219 14:11 225 14:16 245 15:9 225 15:25–28 31 15:32 255

  1 Corinthians 226, 289 – 1:2 31 – 1:20 280 – 2:8 238 – 2:14 269 – 3:3 270 – 6:7–8 177 – 6:11 245 – 7:5 177 – 8:4–6 84

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

321

322

Indexes

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

9:5 29, 38 10:30 245 10:32 31 11:14–15 241 11:16 31 11:22 31 11:27 163 12:6 228 12:12–26 134 12:27 201 13:12 49, 159 14:8 131 14:15 218 15:5–7 28 15:7 28, 34 15:40 269 15:44 269 15:46 269 16:1–3 173

  2 Corinthians – 1:1 31 – 1:17 72 – 1:23 277 – 5:1 269 – 5:10 271 – 6:6 261 – 6:7 106 – 7:5 131 – 7:7 270 – 7:11 270 – 8:1–15 173 – 9:1–15 173 – 9:2 270 – 10:1 138 – 10:10 214, 219 – 11:2 270 – 11:22 194 – 12:20 270, 273 – 13:11 275

Galatians 26, 31, 32, 37, 42 – 1 29 – 1:3 84 – 1:13 282 – 1:13–14 39 – 1:18–19 30 – 1:19 28, 29, 32 – 1:20 277 – 2:4–5 31 – 2:8 228 – 2:9 27, 29 – 2:12 29, 37 – 3:5 228 – 3:6 21 – 3:7–9 194 – 3:28–29 194 – 5:6 182 – 5:13–14 158 – 5:13–26 162 – 5:17 134 – 5:20 270 – 6:10 173 – 6:14 84 – 6:15–16 94 – 6:18 84

  Ephesians 26 – 1:11 228 – 1:13 106 – 1:20 228 – 2:2 228 – 4:8 236 – 4:17 266 – 4:22 282 – 5:19 218 – 6:14–17 241 – 6:13 144

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

Philippians – 1:1 85 – 1:8 277 – 2 221 – 2:11 225 – 2:12 214 – 3:6 270 – 3:8 90 – 3:21 239 – 4:5 138   Colossians – 1:5 106 – 1:18 221 – 3:4 239   1 Thessalonians – 1:1 84 – 1:3 84 – 1:6 84 – 1:8 84 – 2:5 277 – 2:13 228 – 2:19 214 – 3:2 216 – 3:3 190 – 3:13 214, 216 – 4:15 214 – 5:23 214   2 Thessalonians – 2:1 214 – 2:14 239 – 2:17 216 – 3:3 216 1 Timothy – 1:5 261 – 4:12 282

– 5:1–2 220 – 5:17 220 – 6:5 177   2 Timothy – 1:5 261 – 2:15 106 – 2:23 131 – 3:13 182   Titus – 1:1 85 – 1:5–6 220 – 2:2 220 – 3:3 182 – 3:9 131   Philemon – 23–25

59

  Hebrews 26, 45 – 1:3 238 – 3:1 160 – 3:11 276 – 3:18 276 – 4:3 276 – 6:1 174 – 6:13 276 – 6:16 276 – 7:21 276 – 9:14 174 – 10:24 160 – 10:27 270 – 11:17 187 – 11:17–19 21 – 11:31 21, 187, 197 – 11:34 131

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

323

324

Indexes

– 12:3 224 – 12:13 227   Catholic Epistles s. Catholic letters Catholic letters 13, 15, 20, 21, 27, 295, 296   1 Peter 13, 19, 20, 26, 27, 44, 60, 81, 88, 94, 282, 292, 297 – 1:1 61, 220 – 1:2 94 – 1:3 105 – 1:6–12 190 – 1:7 191 – 1:15 282 – 1:18 266 – 1:19 179 – 1:22 261 – 1:23 105 – 2:1 132, 272, 273 – 2:11 94, 134 – 2:12 282 – 2:24 227 – 3:1–2 282 – 3:16 272, 282 – 3:17 255 – 3:18 179 – 4:4 245 – 4:7 216 – 4:12–14 190 – 4:15 134 – 5:1 220 – 5:5–9 145 – 5:10 216 – 5:12–14 62 – 5:13 87   2 Peter 13, 18–20, 27, 44, 282, 293, 297 – 1:1 85 – 1:10 89

– – – –

1:17 2:13 2:15 3:11

238 178 182 282

  1 John 13, 19, 20, 26, 27, 297 – 1:8–9 225 – 2:1 179 – 2:15–17 121 – 3:7 179 – 3:9 105 – 3:13 89 – 3:15 133   2 John

13, 18, 20, 26, 27, 297

  3 John

13, 18, 20, 26, 27, 297

  Jude 11, 13, 18, 20, 26–28, 44, 292, 296, 297 – 1 28, 85 – 19 269   Revelation 13, 26, 60 – 1:1 85 – 1:3 109 – 1:4–5a 60 – 2:2–10 109 – 2:10 113 – 3:11 113 – 3:20 275 – 4:4 113 – 4:10 113 – 5:6 179 – 5:7–8 91 – 5:13 107 – 9:7 131

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

– – – –

9:9 131 10:6 276 10:7 83 12:4 229

– – – –

13:5 229 14:14 113 15:6 241 21:12 91

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

325

326

Indexes

Apocrypha and Dead Sea Scrolls – 99:15–16

Apocalypse of Moses – 8:2 223 – 9 223 – 13:2–5 223   Ascension of Isaiah

142

  Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch s. 2 Baruch 2 Baruch 7, 60, 61, 69, 81, 214 – 14:12 172 – 78:1–87:1 60 – 78:2 61 – 78:6 69 – 84:10 70 – 84:11 70 – 85:3 87 – 86:1–3 62   2 Ezra – 7:106–110   4 Ezra – 7:77 – 8:22 – 13:2

228

172 172 172

  1 Enoch s. Book of Enoch Book of Enoch 7, 82, 179, 257, 259, 288 – 38:2 179 – 53:6 179 – 54:1–6 258 – 94:8–9 178 – 96:8 179 – 97:8–10 178, 257 – 98:10 178

178

  2 Enoch s. Second Book of Enoch Slavonic Enoch s. Second Book of Enoch Second Book of Enoch 7, 82 – 44:1–2 209 – 44:2 210   Book of Jubilees 7 – 17:15–18 115 – 19:9 196 – 30:19 196   3 Maccabees – 3:21 101   4 Maccabees – 1:25 130 – 5:22–24 139 – 7:22 109, 190 – 11:12 190 – 15:17 105 – 16:20 194   Psalms of Solomon – 4:25 113 – 6:6 113 – 10:3 113 – 16:7 117

7, 117, 288

  Testament of Abraham – 7:6 104 – 7:13 104 – 13:5 91

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

7, 82, 214, 289

Index of references

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 82, 90, 91, 289 – Testament of Asher 7 – 1:3–6 102 – Testament of Benjamin 7, 83, 91, 201, 289 – 4:1 112, 151 – 5:2 145 – 6:5–7 102 – 6:5 201 – 9 83 – 9:2 90 – Testament of Dan 7, 247 – 5:1 145 – 5:1–4 247 – Testament of Gad 7 – 3:1 106 – 7:2 251 – Testament of Issachar 7, 101, 247 – 5:1–2 247 – Testament of Job 7, 150 – 1:27 150, 151 – Testament of Judah 7, 214 – Testament of Levi 7 – 8:2 112 – Testament of Naphtali 7 – 8:4 145 – Testament of Simeon 7, 247 – 3 133 – 3:3 134 – 3:5 145 – 3:6 113 – 4:5 251 – 4:7 247

  Qumran Caves Scrolls s. Dead Sea Scrolls Dead Sea Scrolls 8, 58, 134, 158, 161, 200, 208, 249, 291 – 1Q27 (Book of Mysteries) 8, 58

– 1QHa (Hodayot/Thanksgiving Hymns) 8 – 13:27 208 – 1QS (Community Rule) 8 – 3:17–18 102 – 3:17–19 134 – 4:23 102, 134 – 4Q184 (Wiles of the Wicked Woman) 8, 58 – 4Q185 = 4Q424 (4Q Sapiential Work) 8, 58 – 4Q298 (Words of Sage Man) 8, 58 – 4Q299 (Book of Mysteries A) 8, 58 – 4Q300 (Book of Mysteries B) 8, 58 – 4Q301 (Book of Mysteries C) 8, 58 – 4Q412 (Sapiential-Didactic A) 8, 58 – 4Q415 (Instructions A) 8, 58 – 4Q416 (Instructions B) 8, 58 – 4Q417 (Instructions C) 8, 58 – 4Q418 (Instructions D) 8, 58 – 4Q420 (Ways of Righteouseness A) 8, 58 – 4Q421 (Ways of Righteouseness B) 8, 58 – 4Q423 (Instructions G) 8, 58 – 4Q425 (Sapiential-Didactic Work) 8, 58 – 4Q470 (Fragment Mentioning Zedekiah) 8, 158 – 4Q525 (Blessed) 8, 58, 161, 200 – Cairo Damascus Document – 9:9–10 276 – 15:1–3 276

  Epistle of Barnabas – 1:2 140 – 9:9 140 – 10:3 178 – 20:1 102

20, 178, 289

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

327

328

Indexes

Coptic Gospel of Thomas s. Gospel of Thomas Gospel of Thomas 7, 36, 44, 288 – 12 36 – 54 244

First Apocalypse of James

33, 44, 81, 288

  Second Apocalypse of James 33, 34, 37, 41, 44, 288

  History of Joseph the Carpenter 33, 288 – 2:3–4 33

  Apocryphon of James

  Letter of Clement to James 39 Letter of Gamaliel 81 Letter of Peter to James 39

  Protoevangelium of James – 9:2–3 33

  Anabatmoi Jakobou 37

  Secret Book of James

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

44, 45, 288

39

33, 37, 45, 288

Index of references

Others A Athanasius 21 – Easter Letter 21 Augsburg Confession – XI 226 B Babylonian Talmud 60, 61, 240 – Tractate Sanhedrin – 1:2 [18d] 61 Bodenstein, Andreas 26 – De canonicis libris libellus s. a. Welche Bücher heilig und biblisch sind, 26 – Welche Bücher heilig und biblisch sind 26 C Cassiodorus 20, 21 – De Institutione Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum 8 – PL 70:1120 20 Clement of Rome 8, 21, 29, 38, 150, 226, 269, 272, 289 – First Epistle 8, 21, 25, 44, 45, 64, 88, 150, 226, 269, 272, 289 – 10 21 – 12 197 – 12:1 21, 187 – 12:8 197 – 17:3–4 150 – 23:1 22 – 23:4 22 – 30:2 22 – 30:3 272 – 30:6 269 – 38:2 22 – 42:1–4 30 – 51:3–4 226

Codex of Corbie 33, 81 Cyril of Jerusalem 20 – Catechesis – 4:36 20 D Defense of the Augsburg Confession – XI 226 Denzinger, Heinrich – Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum 222 Didache 24, 25, 44, 289 – III 2–3 24 – III 5–6 24 – III 8–9 24 – III 10 24 – The Two Ways 24, 25 – V:1 102 – V–VI 24 Diogenes Laertios s. Diogenes Laërtius Diogenes Laërtius 276, 290 – Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers s. a. Vitae philosophorum, 276 – Vitae philosophorum – VIII 22 276 Doctrine of Addai 24, 39, 288 E Epiphanius of Salamis 8, 34, 37–39 – Adversus Haereses s. a. Panarion, 8 – Panarion 8 – 28:2 39 – 28:3 39 – 29:4 [1–3] 37 – 30:2 [6] 38 – 78:2 [2] 38 – 78:13 [5–8] 37

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

329

330

Indexes

– Refutation of All Heresies s. a. Panarion, 8 Erasmus of Rotterdam 11, 25, 132 – Annotationes in epistulam Jacobi 25 Eusebius of Caesarea 8, 11, 18–20, 26, 28, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 220, 290 – Church History s. a. Historia ecclesiastica, 8 – Historia ecclesiastica 8, 18, 19, 35, 290 – II 1:2–3 30, 38 – II 1:4 35, 40 – II 1:8–9 39 – II 23:3–6 37 – II 23:3–19 85 – II 23:4 36 – II 23:5–6 38 – II 23:7 36 – II 23:17–19 40 – II 23:25 20 – III 11 28 – III 11:1 33 – III 25:3 18, 20 – III 32:4–7 28 – III 39:4 220 – III 39:17 19 – IV 14:9 19 – V 19:14 30 – VI 14:1 20 H Hegesippus 36–41 – Hypomnemata 36, 37 Hermas 21, 22, 25, 44–46, 64, 88, 102, 178, 199, 208, 240, 249, 290 – Shepherd 21, 22, 25, 44, 45, 64, 88, 178, 199, 208, 240, 290 – 27:2–3 22 – 27:3 208 – 28:1 249 – 38:2 22

– 38:10 22 – 39:1–6 22 – 43:8 23 – 43:9 240 – 43:11–15 102 – 45:2 23 – 46:5–48:4 102 – 51:5 23 – 64:1 178 – 64:4 178 – 65:3–5 178 – 99:1–3 199 Hilary of Poitiers 20, 21, 290 – De Trinitate 21, 290 – IV 8 21 Homer – Iliad 203 I Ignatius of Antioch 8, 96, 290 – Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 – VI:2 96 Irenaeus of Lyon 23, 290 – Adversus Haereses 23, 290 – 4:16.2 23 – 5:1 [1] 23 J Jerome 11, 21, 26, 28, 34, 35 – Letter from Bethlehem – 53:9 21 – On Illustrious Men – 2:2 21 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification 285 – 40 285 Justin Martyr 50, 140 – Second Apology – 13:5 140 K Karlstadt

s. Bodenstein, Andreas

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Index of references

L Lumen gentium – 11 222, 226 Luther, Martin 11, 25–27, 110, 111, 132, 142, 147, 175, 226, 285–287, 296 – Large Catechism 110, 111, 226, 296 – On Good Works 25 – Preface to the Epistle to the Romans 175 – Smalcald Articles – VIII 226 – Small Catechism 226 M Mommsen List 19 Muratorian Canon 19 O Omnis utriusque 226 Origen 11, 20, 27, 28, 34, 36, 222, 290 – Commentarii in evangelium Ioannis s. a. Commentary on the Gospel of John, 28 – Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei s. a. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 28 – Commentary on the Gospel of John 27 – XX 10:66 28 – Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 28 – X 17 28 – Contra Celsum 28, 290 – 1:47 28, 34, 36 – 2:13 28 P Peshitta 24 Philo of Alexandria 130, 202, 203, 206, 239, 246, 274 – De Agricultura 202 – De Opificio Mundi 202

– De Posteritate Caini – 101–102 246 – De vita Mosis – 2:9 274 Plato 49, 291 – Republic – X 596e 49 Pliny the Younger 59, 291 – Letters 59, 291 Plutarch 159, 202, 291 – Moralia 202, 291 – 1:42 B 159 Polycarp of Smyrna 8, 19, 96, 221, 290 – Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 8, 96 – VI:1 96, 221 Pseudo-Clement 8 Pseudo-Clementines 29, 38, 39 – Recognitions 8, 38 – Rec. I 38 – Rec. IV 35 38 – Rec. LXX 38 R Rufinus of Aquileia 28 – Commentarii in Romanos s. a. Origenis Commentarius in epistulam ad Romanos, 28 – Origenis Commentarius in epistulam ad Romanos – II 9:396–408 28 – IV 8 28 S Schönmetzer, Adolf – Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum s. Denzinger, HeinrichEnchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

331

332

Indexes

Seneca the Younger 60, 163, 203, 206, 291 – De beneficiis 163 T Tatian – Diatessaron 24 Tertullian 19, 33 – Adversus Marcionem 19 – IV 19 33 Titus Flavius Josephus 8, 28, 36, 39, 40, 50, 158, 198, 239, 276 – Against Apion 290 – 2:171 158 – Antiquitates Iudaicae 8

– V 1:7 198 – XV 10:4 276 – XX 9:1 36, 40 – Antiquities of the Jews s. a. Antiquitates Iudaicae, 8 – De bello Iudaico 8 – II 135 276 – II 139 276 – II 142 276 – The Jewish War s. a. De bello Iudaico, 8 Trajan, emperor 59, 291 – Letters s. a. Pliny the YoungerLetters, 59

© 2021 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht | Brill Deutschland GmbH https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666573309 | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0